N.V. Ramana, J.

The appellant, who claims to be the brother of the deceased has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2011, passed in S.C. No. 34 of 2009, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and respondents-accused Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the de facto complainant and he being the brother of the deceased and P.W.1 in the case, is a victim, and having regard to the definition of the word ‘victim’, as defined in Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C., and the proviso appended to Section 372 Cr.P.C., at his instance, criminal appeal, against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, is maintainable.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that as per the proviso appended to Section 372 Cr.P.C., only the victim has a right to prefer an appeal against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The appellant being the de facto complainant and brother of the deceased and P.W.1 in the case, he will not come within the definition of the word ‘victim’, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., at his instance, criminal appeal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C., against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused, is not maintainable. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and of the High Court of Kerala in John v. Shibu Cherian (2001 Laws (Kerala) 844).

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-de facto complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

In the light of the arguments advanced by them before us, we would like to deal with the amendment to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the changes that are brought into the Criminal Procedure Code.

To answer this question, it would be appropriate to refer to definition of ‘victim’, as defined in the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, vide its Resolution No.40/34, dated 29.11.1985. Under the heading Victims of Crime, the word “victims” is defined as follows:

1. “Victims” means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power.

2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term “victim” also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

The Law Commission of India, in its 154th report, on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Chapter XV dealing with “Victimology”, at para 6.2, referred to the definition of “victim” as defined in the above Declaration of the United Nations. While laying special emphasis on the subject of “Victimology”, the Law Commission, has observed that right from the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurahi (about 1775 BC) it has been observed that victim of crime was left with no remedy except to sue for damages in the civil Court. It has also been noted that in Anglo-Saxon legal system an English Magistrate, advocated state compensation to be given to the victims of crime and accordingly programme was set up in Britain in the year 1964. T