By the Court.—”Law should not sit limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope.” [Jennison v. Baker, (1972) 1 All ER 997]

Crime affects not only the individual victim and his family but the society at large therefore the fundamental purpose and end of political society is defence against external enemies, and the maintenance of peaceable and orderly relations within the community. Salmond in his treatise “Jurisprudence” (Eight Edition Chapter V) while discussing the nature and essential functions of the State wrote: “A State, then, or political society, may be conceived of as an association of human beings established for the attainment of certain ends by certain means. It is the most important of all the various kinds of society in which men unite, being indeed the necessary basis and condition of peace, order, and civilisation. What then is the essential difference between this and other forms of association? .....The difference is clearly one of function. The State must be defined by reference to such of its activities and purposes as are essential and characteristic. .... It is possible, however, to distinguish among the multitudinous operations of government, two which it is suggested may be set apart as primary and essential. These two are war and the administration of justice.....Every society which perform these two functions is a political society or State, and none is such which does not perform them. It is the fundamental duty of a State to ensure administration of justice within its territory. The objectives of criminal justice are prevention and control of crime; maintenance of public order and peace; protection of the rights of victims; trial and punishment of those who are in conflict with law; and reformation of those adjudged guilty of committing crimes. All these had been recognized as State’s obligations and, therefore, till the amendment brought in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by Act No. 5 of 2009, the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal, except in a case instituted upon a complaint, was the sole prerogative of the State. By Act No. 5 of 2009 a Proviso to Section 372 of the Code was added which 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 would lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. To define the word victim, clause (wa) was inserted in Section 2 of the Code.

2. The case in hand engages our attention to answer the pivotal question as to who will fall within the definition of victim as contemplated by Section 2 (wa) of the Code, inserted by the Act No. 5 of 2009.

3. Before we proceed to address the question referred to us, it would be useful to give a brief background of the case. This is a case where on death of a married lady Mamta Singh; her mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntala, her jeth Ajay Kumar Singh and her husband Pawan Kumar Singh were put to trial for offences punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC with alternative charge of Section 302/34 IPC; and Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court acquitted them vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2012. It appears that the father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. The prosecution evidence even failed to substantiate the prosecution case of dowry demand or cruelty or that the deceased committed suicide as a consequence thereof. Under the circumstances, neither the parents of the deceased nor the State preferred appeal against the order of acquittal. However, the brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased has come forward to prefer this appeal against acquittal by claiming himself to be a “victim”.

4. The Division Bench seized of the