In case of Riyugi Nath Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court added a provision to Section 372 CrPC, which gave the "victim" a substantive right of appeal, which was not a retroactive change.
As a result, a "victim" as defined by Section 2w(wa) of the CrPC has no right to file an appeal against a decision made before December 31, 2009, clearing the accused of guilt or penalizing him for a lesser crime or awarding insufficient compensation.
It should be noted that the proviso stating that the right to appeal was introduced to Section 372 CrPC came into force on December 31, 2009, making that date the deciding date for assessing whether a "victim" has the right to pursue an appeal under that section.
The three grounds to move an appeal for the right of victim are:
(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;
(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offense;
(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).
A challenge to the 2004 judgment and order issued by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, whereby the accused who are the respondents were exonerated of the violations of Sections 302/34 IPC was being heard by the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar. The appeal was brought by the "victim" under Section 372 of the CrPC. Apart from the fact that the Stamp Reporter reported a 6228-day delay in filing the appeal, the Court stated at the outset that the appeal itself was not maintainable because, at the time the Court below issued the acquittal order, there was no proviso to Section 372 CrPC granting the victim the right to appeal such an acquittal order.
As a result, it was determined that the appeal, which was brought after a delay of somewhat more than 21 years and challenged a 2004 judgement that had been rendered far earlier than the revision (adding the proviso in the year 2009 with effect from December 31, 2009), was unpersuadable.
As a result, the appeal was denied as unwarranted, and the court held that "...it is very much clear that the amendments made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature. It is, therefore, clear that in the year 2004 when the impugned judgement under challenge was passed, the appellant herein who claims to be the victim had no right to challenge the impugned order dated 2.12.2004 by way of filing the appeal,"