The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right of appeal for victims of a crime who have prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, and the correct interpretation of the term 'victim' as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. All these appeals have been preferred by the victims/complainants challenging the acquittal of the accused in the respective cases.

2. All these appellants had set the law in motion by filing private complaints for the alleged offences in the respective cases before the concerned jurisdictional courts.

3. After trial, the trial Court concerned have acquitted the accused.

4. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the victims of the crime/complainants invoking Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short, ‘the Code’) have preferred these appeals directly to this Court in the year either 2012 or 2013.

5. It is pertinent to be noted that Section 372 of the Code has underwent amendment under the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31.12.2009. As per the said amendment, a proviso was inserted in Section 372 which reads thus:

“ 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.- 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:

[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. Though such a proviso was inserted through the said amendment in Section 372, still victims seem to have chosen to file appeals against acquittal to this Court under Section 378 of the Code.

7. On 27.4.2015, a learned single Judge of this Court, on the issue, as to whether or not the appeal shall be filed before the First Appellate Court/Sessions Court concerned as against the acquittal made by the trial Court, by a victim/complainant, has referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench by framing six questions which are given herein below:

“1. Whether a victim of a crime, who has prosecuted an Accused by way of a Private Complaint, does not have statutory right of Appeal against acquittal under Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

2. Whether a Complainant, in a Private Complaint case, who is not a victim, has got the remedy to seek only leave to file Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the event of acquittal of the Accused?

3. In a Private Complaint case, if a victim does not happen to be a Complainant and in the event of acquittal, whether he has got right of Appeal under Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or he has to seek leave to file Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

4. Whether a victim in a case instituted on a Police Report, has a better place in the Criminal Justice Delivery System than a victim in a Private Complaint case?

5. Whether the term ‘victim’ as defined in Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure excludes a Complainant in a Private Complaint case though he has suffered loss or injury on account of the offence committed against him? and

6. Whether the view held in the judgment of this Court in Selvaraj v. Venkatachalapathy, 2015 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 26 (Mad.), reflects correct exposition of law or the same requires to be overruled?’’

8. In order to answer the said six questions, a Full Bench was constituted, before whom, the matter was referred. The Full Bench, after having exhaustively discussed the issue in depth, has ultimately, concluded by its Judgment dated 05.04.2016 reported in 2016 4 CTC 119 in the matter of S.Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthilvel. The Full Bench has given answers to the questions posed before it, at paragraph 31 of the said Judgment cited supra, which reads thus:

“31. Since, subsequent to the Full Bench reference, the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh interpreted these provisions, we are duty bound to follow the same to the extent it binds us. With that in mind and in the light of the above legal pre