Kerala HC Rules: Victims Need Not Seek Leave for Appeals Against Acquittal Under Section 413 of BNSS

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has issued a significant clarification regarding appellate procedures under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ). In a landmark ruling, the Court held that victims who act as complainants in private criminal complaints are not required to seek leave from the High Court to challenge an acquittal, provided their appeal is directed to the appropriate Sessions Court.

Case Background

The appellant, Soumya Gopal, had initiated criminal proceedings against the accused in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 354 and 354D of the Indian Penal Code. Following the acquittal of the accused on August 13, 2025, the appellant sought to challenge the verdict. The central legal question before the High Court was whether the appellant, in her capacity as a victim-complainant, needed to obtain special leave from the High Court to pursue this appeal.

Legal Analysis: The Shift to BNSS

Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, underscored the provisions of Section 413 of the BNSS , which serves as a pari materia provision to the earlier Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ).

The Court drew heavily on the precedent set in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025) , which established that a complainant who is also a victim enjoys a statutory right to appeal under the provided legal framework. Justice Badharudeen clarified that the rigor of seeking "special leave to appeal"—traditionally required under Section 378 (4) of the CrPC for private complaints—does not apply when the appellant falls within the definition of a "victim" and invokes the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS .

The judgment emphasizes that requiring such leave is an "unwanted procedure" when the appellant possesses an absolute statutory right to approach the lower appellate court directly.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the streamlined path for victims seeking justice:

• On Statutory Rights: "The legal position emerges is that complainants, whose status are as that of victims in relation to cases instituted upon private complaints of all stature... have a remedy to file an appeal, in view of the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 413 of the BNSS ."
• On Unnecessary Procedures: "Grant of leave to file an appeal to the same appellant with the aid of Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. analogous to Section 419 (4) of BNSS is an unwanted procedure and the same need not be allowed."
• On Judicial Efficiency: "It is noticed that, even after the judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial’s case (supra), repeated appeals have been filed by the complainants... seeking leave of the Court and in fact, such leave is not necessary."

Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the High Court directed that the appeal memorandum be returned to the appellant for presentation before the competent Sessions Court. The Registry has been instructed to decline numbering such appeals in the future, as victims are expected to exercise their rights directly at the appropriate authority level, bypassing the unnecessary expenditure of judicial time on "leave to appeal" applications where none is mandated by law. This reformatory stance is expected to accelerate justice delivery for victims in private complaint cases.