2015 Supreme(Ker) 1301
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.T.SANKARAN
Vinod – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendra Krishnan and V. Vinay.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The core legal issue is whether an application to condone delay is required for filing an application for leave under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in an appeal filed by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (!)
- The High Court held that if no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., neither the Code nor the Limitation Act provides for a limitation period, and the Court cannot prescribe one through interpretation. (!)
- The Court ruled that a victim is entitled to file an appeal, and if the appeal is delayed, they must simply explain the circumstances; the Court will then decide if the delay was reasonable based on the specific facts of the case. (!)
- The Court directed that in cases where appeals are filed beyond 90 days from the date of judgment, the appellant must file an affidavit explaining the circumstances for the delay, which the Court will consider during admission. (!)
- The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh clarified that while victims and legal heirs have the statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372, this right is exercisable only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. (!)
- Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. mandates that no appeal to the High Court under subsections (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. (!)
- The period of limitation under Article 114 applies only to appeals under Sections 378(1) and 378(2), not to appeals filed by victims under the proviso to Section 372. (!)
- Consequently, since no limitation period is prescribed for the victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372, it is not necessary to file a separate application for condonation of delay for the leave to appeal itself. (!)
- In the specific case of Crl. M.A. No. 7188 of 2015, leave to appeal was granted because the victim's explanation for the delay (lack of awareness of the case disposal and financial constraints) was found acceptable under the facts and circumstances. (!)
ORDER :
1. The question involved in this case is whether an application to condone the delay in filing the application for leave under S. 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required in an appeal filed by the victim under the proviso to S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present appeal is filed by the victim challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 9 in S.C. No. 143 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery. Along with the appeal, an affidavit explaining the delay was filed in the light of the decision of the Division Bench (in which one of us was a member) in Yohannan vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (3) KLT 333. The Registry pointed out that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 2015 (4) KLT Suppl. 36 (SC) : AIR 2015 SC (Cri.) 1834, an application for leave to appeal is required to be filed under S. 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal filed by the victim under the proviso to S. 372 Crl. P.C. An application for leave was accordingly filed. However, no application to condone the delay in filing the application for leave was filed by the appellant. We passed an order
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
