Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Om Prakash-VII, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & 3 Others - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application Defective U/S 372 CR.P.C (Leave to Appeal) No. - 67 of 2013
Decided On : 13-01-2015
Section 372 Cr.P.C. - Right of Appeal - Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Acts and Sections: Section 372 Cr.P.C., Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 173 (2) (i) of the Code, Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 2 (6) of the U. P. Children Act, 1951, Section 4 (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 357, 357-A of the Code, Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C., the definition of the word 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and various judgments including J. K. International Vs. State, Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Puran Vs. Rambilas, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), National Commission for Women Vs. State of Delhi, National Commission for Women Vs. Bhaskar Lal Sharma, M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd., Parmeshwar Mandal Vs. State of Bihar, Dhanne Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, Edal Singh Vs. State of U. P. - The court analyzed the interpretation of the word 'victim' and its implications on the right to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court also referred to the definitions of 'guardian' and 'legal heir' under different acts and their relevance in determining the locus standi of the appellant to file the appeal. The court highlighted the conflicting views of different High Courts and referred the questions for an authoritative pronouncement.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, brother-in-law of the deceased, filed an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal. The court deliberated on whether the appellant had the right to file the appeal as a 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, as the husband of the sister of the deceased, did not qualify as a 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) and therefore did not have the locus standi to file the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the conflicting views of different High Courts on the interpretation of the word 'victim' and referred the questions for an authoritative pronouncement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the word 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its implications on the right to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court also addressed the conflicting views of different High Courts on the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the word 'victim' and its relevance in determining the locus standi of the appellant to file the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the conflicting views of different High Courts and referred the questions for an authoritative pronouncement.
Final Decision: The court held that the appellant did not qualify as a 'victim' under Section 2 (wa) and therefore did not have the locus standi to file the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court referred the questions for an authoritative pronouncement.
Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Sharma for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr. P.C. along with Delay Condonation Application. At the time of entertaining the same following order was passed by the Division Bench on 31.05.2013 :
"This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The informant father of the deceased has not preferred any appeal against acquittal.
3. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed supported by an affidavit.
4. The question arises that as to whether the applicant Manoj Kumar Singh has a right to file an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. or not.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to prepare the case.
6. List this application along with appeal in the second week of July, 2013 before the appropriate Bench."
7. One of the questions that was posed at the time of entertaining the appeal, as to whether the present applicant Manoj Kumar Singh did have any right to prefer the appeal under Section 372 Cr. P.C. or not.
8. It is admitted on record that the appellant has described himself as the brother-in-law of the deceased i.e. husband of the sister of the deceased.
9. The acquittal is founded on the witnesses having become hostile including the parents of the deceased. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the appellant as a victim so as to entitle him to file the present appeal when his wife, who is the sister of the deceased, is alive and could have filed an appeal.
10. It would be apt to quote Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provision has been inserted by Act No. 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The same is extracted hereunder :
"(wa) - "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir;
11. Prior to the coming of the said amendment, the issue as to who would be entitled to file an Appeal under Section 372 Cr. P.C. can be gathered from the position that was explained in the case of J. K. International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 462 . The Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deliberated on the issue as to when a private person can be permitted to conduct a prosecution and then also relied on the decision, Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 , to speak in favour of the informant where the Apex Court gave its opinion with reference to Section 173 (2) (i) of the Code. The Apex Court then held that the doors cannot be closed in such a situation and the complainant deserves to be heard.
12. Then comes the next decision in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 , where also this issue was considered, though in a different context of cancellation of a bail. That was a case where a third party had moved a bail cancellation application. It was held that the power that was vested in the High Court for cancellation under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party.
13. However, problems were being faced and consequently an amendment was brought and Section 2 (wa) was introduced.
14. The power of the court and the filing of appeal where the State was lagging behind also came up for consideration in the conduct of fair trial in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 . It was after the media had reflected extensively on the credibility of the investigation and the trial that the matter was taken up by the Delhi High Court and suo motu directions were issued for filing of an appeal. However, the afo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
