The Victim's Right to Appeal under Section 372 CrPC

The Victim's Right to Appeal under Section 372 CrPC: A Doctrinal Analysis of Indian Jurisprudence

Introduction

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), forms the bedrock of criminal procedural law in India. A significant development in victim jurisprudence was the introduction of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009), which came into effect on December 31, 2009. This amendment conferred upon the 'victim' a statutory right to appeal against certain orders of a criminal court, thereby aiming to enhance their participation and redressal within the criminal justice system. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC, examining its legislative basis, judicial interpretations by the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, and the evolving contours of this crucial right. It draws heavily upon landmark judgments and statutory provisions to delineate the scope, applicability, and limitations of such appeals.

The Legislative Framework: Section 372 CrPC and the 2009 Amendment

Chapter XXIX of the CrPC deals with appeals. Section 372, in its original formulation, laid down a general bar: "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" (State Of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, 2009). This underscored the principle that the right to appeal is a statutory creation and not an inherent right.

Pre-Amendment Scenario for Victims

Prior to the 2009 amendment, victims of crime had limited avenues to challenge an adverse order. A complainant aggrieved by an acquittal in a case instituted on a complaint could seek special leave to appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC (S. Ganapathy v. N. Senthilvel, 2016). In other cases, the primary right to appeal against acquittal vested with the State under Section 378 CrPC. Victims could, at best, file revision petitions under Section 397 or Section 401 CrPC, the scope of which is narrower than a full appeal (S. Ganapathy v. N. Senthilvel, 2016).

The Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: A New Right for Victims

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, introduced a proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which reads:

"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 proviso marked a significant departure by creating an independent right of appeal for the victim (Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives v. State Of Karnataka And Others, 2019 SCC 2 752; Prithvi Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others, 2022). The object was to empower victims and provide them a voice in the appellate process (Sunil Jangde v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2016; Prithvi Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others, 2022).

Defining the "Victim": Section 2(wa) CrPC

Concurrently, the 2009 amendment inserted Section 2(wa) in the CrPC, defining "victim" as:

"a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression 'victim' includes his or her guardian or legal heir."

The interpretation of this definition has been crucial. The Delhi High Court in Ram Phal v. State & Ors. (2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 9802), in a Full Bench decision, advocated for a broad interpretation, holding that "victim" is not limited to legal heirs entitled to property but includes any person who suffered loss or injury, including relational or emotional harm. This expansive view ensures wider access to the appellate remedy. The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018) also acknowledged the evolving rights of victims. However, it has been clarified that "victim" does not include every informant who lodged an FIR if they do not otherwise meet the criteria of Section 2(wa) (Prithvi Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others, 2022).

Key Judicial Interpretations and Contentious Issues

Nature and Scope of the Right to Appeal

The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018) emphasized that the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a substantive, not merely procedural, right. It recognized that this right places the victim on a higher pedestal in certain respects (Imran Pasha v. State of Karnataka, 2020, citing Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2014) CriLJ 1046). The Allahabad High Court in Prithvi Singh (2022) also described the proviso as a substantive enactment. The appeal can be preferred against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation.

The Requirement of Leave to Appeal: A Judicial Dichotomy and its Resolution

A significant point of contention was whether a victim appealing under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC needs to obtain 'leave to appeal' from the High Court, similar to the requirement under Section 378(3) or Section 378(4) CrPC.

In Satya Pal Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2015 SCC ONLINE SC 906), the Supreme Court held that while a victim (or their legal heir) has a statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372, this right is contingent upon obtaining prior leave from the High Court as mandated by Section 378(3) CrPC. The Court reasoned that a proviso must be read in harmony with its principal clause and cannot negate other procedural requirements.

However, the Supreme Court in the later and larger bench decision of Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018) conclusively settled this issue. The Court held that a victim is *not* required to seek leave of the High Court to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against an order of acquittal. It reasoned that the victim's right under this proviso is distinct and independent, intended to be liberally construed in favour of the victim. The Court overruled contradictory High Court interpretations and distinguished its earlier ruling in National Commission for Women v. State Of Delhi And Another (2010 SCC 12 599), which dealt with the locus standi of third-party organizations. This position effectively supersedes the view taken in Satya Pal Singh (2015) on the requirement of leave for a victim's appeal against acquittal. Despite this, some High Court orders occasionally refer to "leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C." (e.g., Rajendra Tyagi v. State Of Up And 4 Others, 2024), which appears inconsistent with the binding precedent in Mallikarjun Kodagali.

Applicability of the Proviso: Prospective Nature

The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018) clarified that the relevant date for determining the applicability of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is the date of the judgment or order of acquittal, not the date of the offence. If the acquittal order is passed after December 31, 2009 (the effective date of the amendment), the victim has the right to appeal under the proviso, irrespective of when the offence occurred. This aligns with the Delhi High Court's Full Bench view in Ram Phal (2015) that the right is prospective, applying to cases adjudicated after the amendment came into force. An earlier Karnataka High Court reference in Imran Pasha (2020) to a view that the amendment is not applicable if the incident predates the amendment stands implicitly overruled by Mallikarjun Kodagali.

Appeal for Enhancement of Sentence by Victim

The Supreme Court in Parvinder Kansal v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Another (2020 SCC ONLINE SC 685) definitively ruled that a victim cannot maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC for the enhancement of sentence imposed on the accused. The Court clarified that the proviso qualifies the victim's right to appeal only in three specific instances: (i) acquittal of the accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, or (iii) imposition of inadequate compensation. The power to appeal for enhancement of sentence is vested with the State Government under Section 377 CrPC.

Appeals in Complaint Cases

The interplay between the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 378(4) CrPC (which allows a complainant to appeal against acquittal in a complaint case, subject to special leave) has been a subject of discussion. If the complainant is also a "victim" as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC, the question arises whether they can appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without seeking special leave, thereby bypassing the requirement of Section 378(4).

The Delhi High Court in The Bhajanpura Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar (2014 SCC ONLINE DEL 4507) noted conflicting High Court views on whether appeals against acquittal in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cases (which are complaint cases) lie under Section 372 or Section 378(4). Some High Courts (e.g., Kerala and Calcutta, as cited in Bhajanpura Cooperative) opined that a complainant who is also a victim can appeal under Section 372 as a matter of right. The Jharkhand High Court in Amit Sao Alias Amit Shaw v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr (2023), referring to its Full Bench, held that in a complaint case, an appeal against acquittal by the complainant requires special leave. While Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018) did not specifically address appeals arising from complaint cases under Section 378(4), its broad principles favoring a victim's right to appeal without leave could arguably extend to situations where the complainant is unequivocally a "victim." This area may still see further judicial clarification.

Locus Standi: Beyond the Direct Victim

The definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) expressly includes "his or her guardian or legal heir." This was affirmed in cases like Satya Pal Singh (2015) and Ram Phal (2015). However, third-party organizations, even those working for victim welfare like the National Commission for Women, do not have locus standi to file special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution on behalf of victims to challenge acquittals or sentence reductions; such right is reserved for the State or the victim themselves (National Commission For Women v. State Of Delhi And Another, 2010).

Analysis of Landmark Judgments

Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018): Affirming a Robust Right

This judgment is pivotal. It established that:

  • The victim's right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against an acquittal is a substantive and statutory right.
  • The victim does not need to seek leave of the High Court for such an appeal.
  • The relevant date for exercising this right is the date of the acquittal order; if passed after December 31, 2009, the right accrues.
  • The proviso should be given a liberal, victim-centric interpretation.

The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused with the evolving rights of victims, aligning domestic law with international standards.

Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015): The Earlier View on Leave

This case had held that a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 required prior leave from the High Court under Section 378(3) CrPC, based on principles of harmonious construction. While its reasoning on statutory interpretation of provisos remains relevant generally, its specific conclusion on the necessity of leave for a victim's appeal against acquittal has been superseded by the larger bench decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018).

Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020): Demarcating the Limits

This judgment clearly demarcated the boundaries of the victim's right to appeal under Section 372. It held that the three grounds mentioned in the proviso (acquittal, lesser offence, inadequate compensation) are exhaustive for a victim's appeal. An appeal for enhancement of sentence by a victim is not maintainable under this provision.

Ram Phal v. State & Ors. (2015, Delhi HC): Expanding the Definition of "Victim"

The Delhi High Court's Full Bench decision in Ram Phal provided an expansive interpretation of "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC, including those who suffer emotional or relational harm, not merely financial loss or direct physical injury, and their legal heirs. This interpretation significantly broadens the category of persons who can avail the remedy under the proviso to Section 372.

Current Position and Ongoing Considerations

The current legal position, largely crystallized by Mallikarjun Kodagali (2018), affirms a strong, independent, and substantive right for victims to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without requiring leave of the court, provided the appeal is against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or for inadequate compensation, and the impugned order was passed after December 31, 2009.

Despite the clarity from the Supreme Court, particularly in Mallikarjun Kodagali, occasional references in High Court proceedings to "leave to appeal" under Section 372 (e.g., Rajendra Tyagi, 2024) suggest a need for consistent application of the apex court's binding dicta. Furthermore, the precise interplay between a victim-complainant's right under Section 372 proviso and the special leave requirement under Section 378(4) CrPC in complaint cases remains an area that could benefit from more explicit Supreme Court guidance, although the principles of Mallikarjun Kodagali lean towards a no-leave requirement if the complainant qualifies as a "victim."

The role of victim's counsel in assisting the prosecution, as discussed in Rekha Murarka v. State Of West Bengal And Another (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1495), while distinct from the right to appeal, forms part of the broader framework of enhancing victim participation in the criminal justice process.

Conclusion

The introduction of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC represents a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence, significantly empowering victims by granting them a direct right to challenge adverse court orders. The Supreme Court of India, through landmark decisions like Mallikarjun Kodagali, has robustly interpreted this provision to ensure that the legislative intent of providing a meaningful remedy to victims is realized. Key clarifications include the non-requirement of leave to appeal against acquittals, the prospective application based on the date of the impugned order, and a broad understanding of who constitutes a "victim." While the right is circumscribed, notably excluding appeals for sentence enhancement by victims as per Parvinder Kansal, it undeniably strengthens the position of victims within the adversarial criminal justice system. The continued evolution of this jurisprudence will be crucial in ensuring that the rights of victims are not merely symbolic but are effectively enforced, contributing to a more balanced and just criminal process in India.