Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ & DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, JJ.
Ramvati W/o Lt. Sh. Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 61 of 2017
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Gupta with Ms. Sakshi Swami.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Raghav.
Important Point - Appellant being the father of the deceased has locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC
Headnote:Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 353/149, 307/149, 302/149 - Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the Special Judge which challenges the acquittal of the accused-respondents no. 2 to 6 from charges for various offences - There is no doubt that the appellant being the father of the deceased has locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC - He falls within the definition of “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC to question the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court - Let this matter be registered as criminal appeal.
Result - Leave to file appeal is granted.
1. This D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur whereby the accused-respondents no. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges for offences under Sections 148, 353/149, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and Section 9 and 11 of R.D.A. Act. Respondent No. 2 has also been acquitted of charge under Section 216-A IPC and Section 5/27 and 30 of Arms Act. Moreover, Respondent No. 6 has also been acquitted of charge under Section 216-A IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
2. The complainant by this application filed with reference to proviso to Section 372 read with Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has sought leave of this Court to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment and consequential reversal of findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court and for conviction of the accused-respondents.
3. During scrutiny of the matter, Stamp Report of the Registry made the following report:
“It is within time.
Defects:
(1) Present D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal of accused/respondents dated 24.12.2016 passed by Special Judge (DAA) Dholpur. As per proviso of 372 Cr.P.C. this D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal seems not proper.
(2) Status of appellant is not mentioned.
(3) Court fees of Rs. 3/- is deficit on appeal.”
4. The complainant has removed Defect No. 2 and 3 pointed out by the Registry, but with regard to Defect No. 1 that as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. the complainant was required to file appeal rather than filing leave to appeal, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this question has been authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 613, that complainant cannot straightway file appeal against the judgment of acquittal and he has to seek leave of the Court. If he wishes to challenge the acquittal of the accused under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. he can do so only after obtaining leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
5. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that Madhya Pradesh High Court in that case had dealt with the appeal filed by the victim against the acquittal of accused therein without requiring him to obtain leave of the Court. Though, eventually appeal was dismissed on merits, but the complainant challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court by filing special leave petition. The Supreme Court while granting leave, treated the same as appeal against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Reliance on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court was placed on Full Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in Ram Phal vs. State, (2015) 221 DLT 1, wherein the Full Bench of that court after interpreting proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. held that father of the victim has locus standi to prefer the appeal, being a private party coming under the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. It was, therefore, argued that appeal filed by the victim directly before the High Court against the judgment of acquittal of the accused was maintainable. Repelling that contention, the Supreme Court in Para 8 to 10 held as under:
“8. We have carefully examined the abovementioned provisions of CrPC and the Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Ram Phal vs. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9802 referred to supra upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no doubt that the appellant, being the father of the deceased, has locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as he falls within the definition of “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC to question the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of Respondents 2 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 293 of 2010.
9. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC was amended by Act 5 of 2009. The said proviso confers a statutor
