1. Appeal against acquittal of accused convicted of murder and assault — Death of original appellant (victim) — Application for substitution by legal heir. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1248
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Khem Singh (D) Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttaranchal (Now State Of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2017
Decided on : 31-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Neema, AOR Mr. Aruni Poddar, Adv. Mr. Ekta Muyal, aDv. Mr. Anit Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Shivani Kumari Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Dr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Ali Jethmalani, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Wason, Adv. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Anil Makhija, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Vats, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Neema, AOR Mr. Aruni Poddar, Adv. Mr. Ekta Muyal, aDv. Mr. Anit Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Shivani Kumari Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Dr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Ali Jethmalani, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Wason, Adv. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Anil Makhija, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Vats, Adv.
The Court held that the 'right to prefer an appeal' under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the 'right to prosecute' it, permitting the substitution of legal heirs of a victim. Furthermore, appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments and independently evaluate evidence when reversing a conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 452, 302, 307, 149 - Appeal against acquittal - Appeals filed by the accused were allowed by the High Court, leading to aggrieved parties appealing to the Supreme Court - The specific incident involved a violent altercation leading to one death and various injuries - The Court highlighted the significance of the definition of 'victim' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Sections 372 and 2(wa) - The key legal issues arose around the right to substitute the original appellant post his demise and the legal heir’s right to prosecute appeals - The Court underscored that the victim's rights, as amended, extend to their legal heirs, enabling them to pursue appeals - Insufficient reasoning in the High Court's judgment necessitated a remand to reassess the case with a focus on the evidence presented. (Paras 5.4, 11, 12, 14, 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appeal abates on the death of the victim-appellant under Section 394 CrPC or if the legal heir can be substituted to prosecute. (Para 3 )
3. Analysis of victim's independent right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC and the requirement for appellate courts to provide reasoned judgments when reversing convictions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Substitution allowed; High Court judgment set aside for being cryptic and lacking reasoning; matter remanded for fresh hearing. (Para 12 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Can a legal heir of a victim substitute themselves to prosecute a criminal appeal filed by the victim?
Yes. The definition of victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes legal heirs. The right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it, allowing legal heirs to be substituted upon the original appellant's death to ensure the right is not rendered redundant. (Para 11 )
6. How does the victim's right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC differ from a complainant's right under Section 378 CrPC?
A victim has an independent statutory right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing special leave. In contrast, a complainant must seek special leave from the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC to appeal an order of acquittal. (Para 8 )
7. What is the required standard for a High Court judgment when reversing a trial court's conviction and granting acquittal?
The High Court must independently evaluate the evidence, marshal the facts, and provide clear reasoning. A cryptic judgment that lacks a proper application of mind to crucial evidence is unsustainable, as the court must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt before reversing a conviction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.254 of 2004, 258 of 2004, 259 of 2004 by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, the original appellant Khem Singh S/o Tarachand preferred these Special Leave Petitions before this Court. By order dated 06.07.2017, leave was granted by this Court and consequently, the Special Leave Petitions have been converted to these Criminal Appeals.
Facts in Brief:
2. For ease of reference, the private respondents herein, namely,
i) Anil @ Neelu; ii) Pramod; and iii) Ashok, who were accused Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively in S.T. No.133/1993 in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar (henceforth “Sessions Court”), are henceforth referred to as ‘respondents-accused’. The other accused in S.T. No.133/1993, who were acquitted by the Sessions Court, are referred to as ‘other accused’.
2.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the prosecution are that there was a long-standing previous enmity between the respondents-accused and other accused and the original informant and others. On 08.12.1992, there was some heated exchange between them. The next day, i.e. on 09.12.1992, at about 08.00 A.M., informant Tara Chand (P.W.1), his brother Virendra Singh, and P.W.1’s son Khem Singh (P.W.3) were attacked by the respondents-accused and the other accused using guns, sharp weapons, and bricks. As a result, Virendra Singh passed away, and P.W.1 and P.W.3 sustained injuries. On the arrival of villagers, all the accused managed to escape.
2.2 The specific roles attributed to the respondents-accused are that: i) Accused No.2, Ashok, fired on Virendra Singh using a gun;
ii) Accused No.3, Pramod, fired on P.W.3 using a gun; and iii) Accused No.4, Anil @ Neelu, fired on Smt. Mithilesh, wife of P.W.3. On a complaint given by P.W.1 Tara Chand, Case Crime No.547/92 dated 09.12.1992 was registered at P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar against all the accused persons. The respondents- accused were charged under Sections 148 , 452, 302, 307, 149, 326, and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”).
2.3 After examining all the material witnesses and after hearing both the parties, the Sessions Court, vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2004/04.08.2004 acquitted the other accused on the ground that the role assigned to them was not fully proved. However, the Sessions Court found that the case against the respondents-accused was fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The sentence passed against the respondents-accused is as follows:
| Name of the Accused | IPC Section found guilty of | Punishment granted [R.I. – Rigorous Imprisonment; S.I. – Simple Imprisonment] | Punishment in default of fine |
| Ashok (A2) | S.302 | R.I. for life + Rs.1000 fine | One month S.I. for each offence |
| Ss.307/34 | Five years R.I. + Rs. 1000 fine | ||
| S.452 | One month R.I. + Rs.1000 fine | ||
| Pramod (A3) & Anil @ Neelu (A4) | Ss.302/34 | R.I. for life + Rs.1000 fine | One month S.I. for each offence |
| S.307 | Five years R.I. + Rs. 1000 fine | ||
| S.452 | One month R.I. + Rs.1000 fine |
2.4 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the respondents-accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.254, 258 and 259 of 2004 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court, vide common impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2012, allowed the criminal appeals filed by the respondents-accused.
2.5 The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2017 was appellant/Accused No.4-Anil @ Neelu in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2004 before the High Court. The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2017 was appellant/accused No.3- Pramod in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2004 before the High Court. The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.1332 of 2017 was appellant/accused No.2-Kali Ram in Criminal No.259 of 2004 before the High Court. For e
