The Victim's Right to Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 372 Proviso CrPC in India

The Victim's Right to Appeal Against Acquittal Under the Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A Judicial Metamorphosis

Introduction

The Indian criminal justice system, traditionally oriented towards a bipolar contest between the State and the accused, has witnessed a significant paradigm shift with the increasing recognition of victims' rights. A cornerstone of this evolution is the statutory right conferred upon a "victim"[1] to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation, by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This article endeavors to provide a comprehensive analysis of this right, tracing its legislative origins, dissecting key judicial pronouncements that have shaped its contours, and examining its interplay with other provisions of the CrPC, particularly Section 378 which governs appeals by the State against acquittals.

Background: The Legislative Ascent of Victim's Rights

Historically, the victim's role in the criminal justice process was largely confined to that of a witness, with the State assuming the primary responsibility for prosecution. The Law Commission of India, in its various reports, and the Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003), vociferously advocated for a more participatory role for victims.[2] These recommendations, coupled with evolving international human rights norms, particularly the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, provided the impetus for legislative reform.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2009), which came into force on December 31, 2009, marked a watershed moment by introducing, inter alia, the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa)[3] and the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. This proviso carved out an exception to the general rule that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by the Code or any other law, by granting the victim a specific right to appeal.

Analysis of Key Legal Issues Surrounding the Proviso to Section 372 CrPC

The Nature and Scope of the Victim's Right to Appeal

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC states: "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."

This provision confers a substantive and independent statutory right upon the victim. The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives v. State Of Karnataka And Others[2] emphasized that this right is not merely procedural but a substantive one, intended to empower victims and provide them a voice in the justice delivery system. The Court clarified that this right accrues when the order of acquittal is passed after December 31, 2009, irrespective of the date of the offence.[2]

However, the scope of this appeal is circumscribed by the specific grounds mentioned: acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. It does not extend to a general right to appeal for enhancement of sentence if the accused has been convicted for the main offence charged. The Supreme Court in Parvinder Kansal v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Another[4] held that an appeal by a victim seeking enhancement of sentence, outside the specific conditions of the proviso (e.g., conviction for a lesser offence), is not maintainable under Section 372 proviso.

The Conundrum of 'Leave to Appeal': Section 372 Proviso vis-à-vis Section 378 CrPC

A significant area of judicial debate revolved around whether a victim, while exercising the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, is required to obtain 'leave' (permission) from the appellate court, similar to the requirement for the State under Section 378(3) CrPC[5] or a complainant in a complaint case under Section 378(4) CrPC.[6]

Initially, some High Courts and even the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others[7] took the view that the victim must seek leave to appeal. The reasoning was often based on harmonizing the proviso to Section 372 with the existing framework of Section 378, which generally mandates leave for appeals against acquittal to prevent frivolous litigation.[8] The Delhi High Court in Jagmohan Bhola v. Dilbagh Rai Bhola & Ors S[9] also inclined towards requiring leave.

However, this position was decisively overturned by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali.[2] The Court, after an extensive review of legislative intent and victimological principles, held that a victim is not required to apply for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. It reasoned that the proviso to Section 372 is a special, self-contained provision conferring an unfettered right on the victim. This landmark ruling has been consistently followed.[10] The Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali explicitly stated, "Our answer to this question [Whether the “victim” must apply for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal?] is in the negative."[2, para 9] This interpretation gives full effect to the legislative intent of empowering victims.

The Gujarat High Court in Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State Of Gujarat & Others,[11] even prior to Mallikarjun Kodagali, had held that a victim who is not the complainant does not require leave to appeal under the proviso to Section 372. For a victim who is also the complainant in a case instituted upon a complaint, the requirement to seek special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC for appealing an acquittal would still apply, as clarified in Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration).[6] However, Mallikarjun Kodagali’s broad pronouncement regarding "victim" under Section 2(wa) suggests a general exemption from leave for appeals under the proviso to Section 372.

Independence of the Victim's Right from the State's Appeal

The victim's right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is independent of the State's right to appeal under Section 378 CrPC. The Gujarat High Court in Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana[11] held that both the victim's and the State's appeals are maintainable independently, and the filing of an appeal by one party does not preclude the other from filing an appeal against the same order. This underscores the distinct standing and interest of the victim in the pursuit of justice.

Distinction from Victim's Participation in Prosecution

The right to appeal under Section 372 proviso is distinct from the victim's right to participate in the prosecution process, such as by engaging a counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) proviso CrPC. The Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka v. State Of West Bengal And Another[12] delineated the scope of such assistance, clarifying that the victim's counsel plays a supportive role to the Public Prosecutor and cannot take over the conduct of the prosecution. The right to appeal under Section 372 proviso, however, is a post-judgment remedy exercisable independently by the victim.

Discussion of Key Reference Materials

The jurisprudence on the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 proviso has been significantly shaped by several key judicial decisions:

  • Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives v. State Of Karnataka And Others (2019 SCC 2 752, SC 2018)[2]: This is the seminal judgment that authoritatively established that a victim has a substantive, unfettered right to appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without the necessity of obtaining leave from the appellate court. It emphasized a victim-centric interpretation and clarified the prospective application of the proviso based on the date of the acquittal order. This decision effectively settled the conflicting views on the requirement of leave.
  • Satya Pal Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2015 SCC ONLINE SC 906, SC 2015)[7]: This earlier Supreme Court decision had held that a victim appealing under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must obtain leave as per Section 378(3) CrPC. However, this view has been superseded by the larger bench decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali.[2] While Roopendra Singh v. State Of Tripura And Another[13] also discussed Satya Pal Singh, the definitive clarification came with Mallikarjun Kodagali.
  • Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State Of Gujarat & Others (2012 SCC ONLINE GUJ 5764, Gujarat HC 2012)[11]: This Gujarat High Court ruling was prescient in affirming the independent nature of the victim's appeal. It distinguished between victims who are complainants (requiring leave under S.378(4) for appeals in complaint cases) and other victims (not requiring leave for appeals under S.372 proviso). Its reasoning on the independent right of the victim aligns with the subsequent Supreme Court stance.
  • Parvinder Kansal v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Another (2020 SCC ONLINE SC 685, SC 2020)[4]: This case is crucial for delineating the limits of the victim's appeal under Section 372 proviso. It clarified that the proviso does not confer a right on the victim to appeal for enhancement of sentence if the conviction is for the offence charged, but only if it's for a "lesser offence" or if compensation is "inadequate."
  • Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (2013 SCC 2 17, SC 2013)[6]: While primarily dealing with appeals in complaint cases under Section 378(4) CrPC (requiring special leave for the complainant to appeal an acquittal to the High Court), this case provides context to the general scheme of appeals against acquittal and the concept of 'leave,' thereby helping to distinguish the victim's specific right under the Section 372 proviso.
  • Rekha Murarka v. State Of West Bengal And Another (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1495, SC 2019)[12]: This judgment clarifies the extent of a victim's counsel's participation during trial (assisting the Public Prosecutor), which is distinct from the post-acquittal right to appeal independently granted by Section 372 proviso.

The extracts from cases like Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey And Another[14], State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh[5], MAHABIR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA[15], and State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Alias Chhotu[16] primarily elaborate on the State's power to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC and the powers of the appellate court in such appeals. These provide a backdrop against which the victim's newly conferred right under Section 372 proviso can be appreciated as a distinct and additional avenue for challenging acquittals. The principles regarding the appellate court's power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal, as discussed in State Of Gujarat (S) v. Jethalal Chunilal Mehta Opponent(S)[17] and Madhavbhai Jethanand Joshi (S) v. Sadhu Shri Satyanarayan Giri Ji & 1 Opponent(S)[18], would equally apply once a victim's appeal is admitted.

The reference in Joseph Stephen And Others v. Santhanasamy And Others[19] to the victim's right of appeal under Section 372 CrPC, even in the context of discussing revisional jurisdiction, further acknowledges the established nature of this statutory right. Cases like Shyam Sharan Tiwari v. State Of U.P.[20] reiterate the interpretation of Section 372 proviso in line with Satya Pal Singh (pre-Mallikarjun Kodagali) or discuss the definition of "victim." Post-Mallikarjun Kodagali, decisions like those in DR SHIVAKUMARSWAMI v. H B RAMU[21] and BHERA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[10] correctly apply the principle that no leave is required.

Conclusion

The introduction of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC represents a monumental step in fortifying victim justice in India. The judicial interpretation, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali,[2] has firmly established that a "victim" possesses a substantive and independent statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, without the requirement of obtaining leave from the appellate court. This right is pivotal in ensuring that the victim's perspective is duly considered in the appellate process, thereby promoting a more balanced and equitable criminal justice system.

While the core aspects of this right are now well-settled, the practical interplay when both the State and the victim file appeals against the same order, and the precise contours of what constitutes a "lesser offence" or "inadequate compensation" in varied factual matrices, may continue to evolve through judicial scrutiny. Nevertheless, the journey of Section 372 proviso from legislative enactment to robust judicial affirmation signifies a commendable progression in India's commitment to victim jurisprudence and the pursuit of holistic justice.

References