- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Naval Kishore Mishra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The accused–respondents were tried in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2014 (State v. Vrindawan) for offences under Sections 452 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 19-12-2016 the trial court acquitted all the accused.
The State of Uttar Pradesh sought leave to appeal under Sections 372/378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but another Bench of the High Court refused leave on 18-04-2017, thereby dismissing Government Appeal No. 1947 of 2017.
Separately, the victim (the deceased’s unmarried brother) filed a statutory appeal against the acquittal. On 23-11-2017 the High Court dismissed that appeal on the sole ground that, because leave had been refused to the State, it would not be “congruous” to entertain a parallel appeal by the victim.
The victim approached the Supreme Court. Leave was granted; the State appeared as respondent but supported the appeal. Other respondents, though served, did not appear.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC must obtain leave to appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372, particularly when the State’s request for leave has been refused.
- If no such leave is required, whether the High Court erred in dismissing the victim’s appeal solely because leave to appeal had been denied to the State.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent State’s Arguments
- Invoked the 2009 amendment inserting the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which expressly grants a victim the right to appeal an acquittal.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, asserting that a victim need not seek leave to appeal.
Appellant (Victim)’s Arguments
- Adopted and supported the State’s submission that the victim’s right to appeal is independent of the State’s right and is not conditioned upon the grant of leave.
- Contended that the High Court therefore acted illegally in dismissing the appeal at the threshold.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 | A victim’s statutory appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not require prior leave. | The Supreme Court relied on this ruling to hold that the appellant’s appeal before the High Court should have been treated as a regular appeal without any preliminary leave requirement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first noted that Section 2(wa) CrPC defines “victim” to include the legal heirs of a deceased person. Because the deceased was unmarried, the appellant—his brother—squarely fits within this definition.
Applying Mallikarjun Kodagali, the Court reaffirmed that a victim’s statutory right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 operates independently of the State’s separate avenue under Sections 372/378, and crucially, it does not require leave.
The only reason the High Court gave for dismissing the victim’s appeal was that leave to the State had been refused. The Supreme Court held this reasoning to be legally untenable because it conflates two distinct appellate rights. The victim’s appeal should have been heard on merits as a regular appeal.
Holding and Implications
Order: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 23-11-2017 and remitted the victim’s appeal to the High Court for consideration on merits.
Implications: The decision reinforces the autonomous appellate right granted to victims by the 2009 amendment to Section 372 CrPC. It clarifies that refusal of leave to the State does not bar a victim’s appeal, thereby strengthening victims’ participatory rights in criminal proceedings. No new precedent was created, but existing Supreme Court jurisprudence was applied and affirmed.
Order
1. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the appellant. The other respondents have been served but none has entered appearance.
2. The accused-respondents were put to trial in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2014 titled State v. Vrindawan arising out of Criminal Case No. 53 of 2014 under Sections 452 and 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The accused were acquitted by the trial court in terms of the judgment dated 19-12-2016.
3. The State aggrieved by the said order sought leave to appeal in Government Appeal No. 1947 of 2017. In terms of Section 372 read with Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”, for short) such leave was declined vide order dated 18-4-2017 2017 SCC OnLine All 2899.
4. The appeal filed by the victim, however, came up before the Court after the aforesaid transpired and vide the impugned order dated 23-11-2017 2017 SCC OnLine All 2898 has been dismissed on the following ground: (Naval Kishor case 2017 SCC OnLine All 2898, SCC OnLine All para 7)
“7. … Since another Bench of this Court has already refused to grant leave and the government appeal itself stood dismissed in reference to the refusal to grant leave, it will not be congruous to unfold another course keeping pending to this appeal.”
5. The learned counsel for the State has contended that the rights of the victim have been enlarged in terms of the amendment carried out by insertion of proviso to Section 372 CrPC by Amendment Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31-12-2009. The provision reads as under:
“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.
6. We may notice that Section 2(wa) defines victim as under:
“2. (wa) “victim” means 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;”
7. In the present case, the victim, thus, includes his or her guardians or legal heirs. The deceased was unmarried and the victim is the real brother and, thus, would fall under the category of legal heir of the deceased.
8. It is, however, submitted by her that the question whether the victim would also have to seek leave as would be a situation envisaged under Section 478 CrPC as in the case of the State has been considered and is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752 where this Court opined that there is no need for a victim to apply leave to appeal against the order of acquittal while preferring an appeal under Section 372 proviso to CrPC.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is contended that since the right to appeal would be available, it is different from the appeal filed by the State seeking leave to appeal and, thus, the appeal filed by the victim in the present case ought not to have been dismissed at the threshold only on the ground that no leave has been granted to the State to appeal against the order of acquittal.
10. The aforesaid plea is naturally supported by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
11. We are in agreement with the aforesaid plea since the extracted portion of the impugned order 2017 SCC OnLine All 2898 shows that the only reason recorded for dismissing the appeal of the victim (in fact styled as leave to appeal) was on the ground that leave had not been granted to the Government to file the appeal. The legal position enunciated in Mallikarjun Kodagali (2019) 2 SCC 752 would show that the appellant had a right to file the appeal and in fact no leave has to be sought in such a situation. Thus, the appeal has to be dealt as a regular appeal.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order 2017 SCC OnLine All 2898 of the High Court and allow the appeal remitting the appeal to be considered by the High Court on merits.
Alert