WWW.LIVELAW.

IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   555       OF 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020]

Parvinder Kansal   …..Appellant
Versus

The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.       …..Respondents

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  criminal appeal  is  filed  by the  appellant  in  Criminal

Appeal   No.1284   of   2019,   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   27 th

November 2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

By the aforesaid order, High Court has dismissed the appeal filed

by   the   appellant   herein   under   Section   372   of   the   Code   of

Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of sentence imposed in

Sessions   Case   No.742   of   2007   by   the   Special   Judge   (NDPS),

North   District,   Rohini   District   Courts,   Delhi   vide   order   dated

17.08.2019.

Signature Not Verified

3. The appellant herein was the complainant in FIR No.742 of
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2020.08.28
16:16:34 IST
Reason:
2007   registered   on   15.10.2007   for   the   offence   under   Section

364A   read   with   Section   34,   IPC   and   the   second   respondent
1
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

herein   was   the   accused.     After   investigation   of   the   crime,

chargesheet   dated   11.01.2008   was   filed   against   the   second

respondent­accused   under   Sections   364A/302/201,   IPC.     On

committal,   case   was   referred   to   the   court   of   Special   Judge

(NDPS),   North   District,   Rohini   Courts,   Delhi   and   the   second

respondent   was   tried   in   Sessions   Case   No.58259   of   2016.     By

judgment dated 30th  July 2019 in the above said Sessions Case

No.742 of 2007 the second respondent was convicted for offence

punishable   under   Sections   364A,   302   and   201,   IPC.     By

subsequent order dated 17th  August 2019 he was sentenced for

offence under Sections 302, 364A and 201, IPC as under :

“14. In view of above observations this Court directs
that :

A) The convict is sentenced with imprisonment for
life u/s 302 IPC and is further directed to pay a fine
of   Rs.1   lakh.   In   default   of   payment   of   fine,   he   is
directed to undergo SI for five years.

B) The convict is sentenced with imprisonment for
life u/s 364A IPC and is further directed to pay a fine
of   Rs.1   lakh.   In   default   of   payment   of   fine,   he   is
directed to undergo SI for five years.

C) The   convict   is   sentenced   with   rigorous

imprisonment   for   seven   years   for   the   offence
punishable   u/s   201   IPC   and   is   further   directed   to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/­.   In default of payment of
fine, he is directed to undergo SI for one year.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.   Benefit
of   Section   428   Cr.PC   shall   be   given   to   the   convict
qua the offence u/s 201 IPC.”
2
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

4. The complainant, who is the father of the deceased boy, has

filed appeal challenging the order of sentence dated 17 th  August

2019   passed   by   ASJ/Special   Judge   (NDPS),   North   District,

Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.58259 of 2016 seeking

enhancement of sentence to death penalty.   In the appeal filed

before   the   High   Court   under   Section   372,   Code   of   Criminal

Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   ‘Cr.PC’),   it   was   his   case   that   the

sentence   of   life   imprisonment   imposed   on   the   second

respondent­convict is inadequate  and  needs  to  be enhanced to

death   penalty.     Vide   impugned   judgment   dated   27 th  November

2019 the High Court of Delhi has dismissed the appeal as not

maintainable.

5. We   have   heard   Sri   Ashwani   Bhardwaj,   learned   advocate

appearing   for   the   appellant   and   Sri   Chirag   M.   Shroff,   learned

counsel appearing for the State of NCT of Delhi.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant, though

the respondent no.2 had committed murder of an innocent child,

the   Sessions   Court,   instead   to   award   punishment   of   death

penalty, has awarded only imprisonment for life.  It is contended

that in view of proviso to Section 372, Cr.PC which gives right to

prefer   appeal   to   the   victim,   when   the   accused   is   convicted   for

3
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

lesser offence, there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal

only   for   a   lesser   offence   but   not   for   lesser   sentence.     It   is

submitted that on 15.10.2007 when the son of the appellant was

kidnapped and demand of ransom was made which was also paid

to the second respondent but after kidnap his son was brutally

murdered.     As   such,   it   is   submitted   that   it   is   a   fit   case   for

enhancement   of   sentence   from   life   imprisonment   to   death

penalty,   for   the   second   respondent.     The   learned   counsel   has

submitted that the High Court has not considered the provision

under   Section   372,   Cr.PC   properly   vis­a­vis   the   judgments

referred to and dismissed the appeal, contrary to plain meaning

of Section 372, Cr.PC.  

7. On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for

the   State   of   NCT   of   Delhi   that   a   reading   of   provision   under

Section   372   and   Section   377   of   Cr.PC  makes   it   clear   that   the

appeal under Section 372 Cr.PC by the victim is a qualified one

which is maintainable in the event of acquittal of the accused or

convicting   for   lesser   offence   or   for   imposing   inadequate

compensation   only,   whereas   under   Section   377   Cr.PC   State

Government is empowered to prefer appeal to the High Court in

the   event   of   inadequate   sentence   by  the   Sessions   Court.     It  is

stated   by   learned   counsel   that   for   enhancement   of   sentence,

victim cannot maintain appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC.
4
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

8. Having   heard   learned   counsel   on   both   sides,   we   have

perused the material on record and the relevant provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. Chapter   XXIX   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973

deals   with   ‘Appeals’   and   Section   372   makes   it   clear   that   no

appeal to lie unless otherwise provided by the Code or any other

law for the time being in force.   It is not in dispute that in the

instant case appellant has preferred appeal only under Section

372, Cr.PC.  The proviso is inserted to Section 372, Cr.PC by Act

5 of 2009.   Section 372 and the proviso which is subsequently

inserted read as under:

“372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.
– No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a
Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or
by any other law for the time being in force:

Provided   that   the   victim   shall   have   a   right   to

prefer   an   appeal   against   any   order   passed   by   the
Court   acquitting   the   accused   or   convicting   for   a
lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation,
and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an
appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction
of such Court.”

A   reading   of   the   proviso   makes   it   clear   that   so   far   as   victim’s

right   of   appeal   is   concerned,   same   is   restricted   to   three

eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the

accused   for   lesser   offence;   or   for   imposing   inadequate

5
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

compensation.     While   the   victim   is   given   opportunity   to   prefer

appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at

the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for

questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section

377,   Cr.PC   gives   the   power   to   the   State   Government   to   prefer

appeal   for   enhancement   of   sentence.     While   it   is   open   for   the

State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under

Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by

victim   under   Section   372,   Cr.PC   on   the   ground   of   inadequate

sentence.     It   is   fairly   well  settled   that   the   remedy   of   appeal   is

creature  of  the Statute.    Unless  same is provided  either under

Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being

in   force   no   appeal,   seeking   enhancement   of   sentence   at   the

instance  of  the   victim,  is  maintainable.    Further  we  are  of  the

view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this

Court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State

of   Delhi   &   Anr.  (2010)   12   SCC   599   has   rightly   relied   on   the

same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable.  

6
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this

appeal, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the

High Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

………….………………………………...J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]

….…………………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi.
August 28, 2020.