Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Lies Before Sessions Court, Not High Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Forum Under BNSS for Victims Challenging Acquittals

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has delivered a significant ruling on the appellate rights of victims under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court held that a victim's appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate must be filed before the Sessions Court, and not the High Court, irrespective of the nature of the offence.

The decision came in the case of Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , where the petitioner, a father whose son had died by suicide in a hospital, sought to challenge the acquittal of a doctor and a nurse accused of negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

A Father's Tragic Quest

The petitioner's son, suffering from depressive disorders, was admitted to a hospital where he died by suicide. Blaming the medical staff for negligence, the father filed an FIR under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC, a bailable offence. After a trial, the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, acquitted the accused.

Aggrieved, the father approached the Calcutta High Court, which refused to entertain the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable before the High Court and granting him liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Court. The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

Navigating the BNSS Framework

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner appeared in person and was assisted by amici curiae. The key question was whether the High Court's order was correct in light of the BNSS provisions governing appeals from acquittal.

The Court examined the interplay between Sections 413, 415(3), and 419 of the BNSS. While Section 419 deals with appeals by the State against acquittal , the proviso to Section 413 specifically empowers the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal . The proviso states that "such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

Turning to Section 415(3), the Court noted that any person convicted in a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class or Second Class may appeal to the Court of Session. Consequently, an appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court. By the same logic, a victim's appeal against an acquittal by the same Magistrate must also be filed before the Sessions Court.

Sessions Court, Not High Court

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the State's appeal provisions under Section 419 should govern the victim's remedy. It clarified that the proviso to Section 413 is a self-contained provision that creates a distinct right for the victim, and the forum for such an appeal is determined by the court that would ordinarily hear an appeal from a conviction.

"The order of acquittal passed by a learned Magistrate, hence, has to be appealed before the Court in which a conviction ordered by a Magistrate can be appealed, which is the Sessions Court ," the Court observed.

The Court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on the judgment in Rajan Chadha and Another v. Sanjay Arora , distinguishing it on facts and holding that a coordinate bench could not be precluded from examining maintainability at the final hearing stage.

A Grace Period for the Petitioner

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner a one-month window from the date of the order to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. It directed that if filed within this period, the appeal shall be admitted and heard on merits without being barred by limitation, as the delay was caused by the bona fide pursuit of legal remedies.

"We make it clear that we have not made any observation regarding the merits of the matter or the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The appeal shall be dealt with in accordance with law," the Court stated.

Key Observations

  • "The proviso confers on the victim a right to proffer an appeal against any order of acquittal , conviction for a lesser offence or on the ground of inadequate compensation ."
  • "When there is a conviction in a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class or the Second Class, an appeal lies to the Sessions Court ."
  • "An appeal filed by a victim against an order of acquittal also has to be before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

Implications

The ruling settles the forum for victim appeals under the BNSS, ensuring consistency and preventing forum shopping. It underscores that the victim's right to appeal is aligned with the general appellate hierarchy, where the Sessions Court is the appropriate appellate authority for Magistrate's orders, regardless of the nature of the offence.

The judgment is a crucial interpretation of the BNSS, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, and will guide victims and legal practitioners in pursuing appeals from acquittals in the magistracy.