The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that the right of a victim to “prefer an appeal” under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) also includes the “right to prosecute an appeal.” Consequently, the Court ruled that if an original appellant, who is a victim, dies during the pendency of the appeal, their legal heir can be substituted to continue the proceedings.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan while hearing appeals against a 2012 Uttarakhand High Court decision that had acquitted three men convicted of murder and other offences by a Sessions Court. The Supreme Court set aside the “cryptic” High Court judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, allowing the deceased victim’s son to prosecute the appeals.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on December 9, 1992, following a long-standing enmity between two parties. The informant, Tara Chand (P.W.1), his brother Virendra Singh, and his son Khem Singh (P.W.3) were attacked by several accused with guns and sharp weapons. The attack resulted in the death of Virendra Singh, while Tara Chand and Khem Singh sustained injuries.
Following an investigation, charges were framed under Sections 148, 452, 302, 307, 149, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On August 4, 2004, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar, convicted three accused: Ashok (A2), Pramod (A3), and Anil @ Neelu (A4). Ashok was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC, while all three were sentenced for other offences, including attempt to murder under Section 307.
The convicts challenged their conviction before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. In a common judgment dated September 12, 2012, the High Court allowed their appeals and acquitted them of all charges. Aggrieved by this acquittal, Khem Singh, an injured victim, filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were converted into criminal appeals.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
During the pendency of the appeals, the original appellant, Khem Singh, passed away. His son, Raj Kumar, who was also an injured victim in the incident, filed applications to be substituted to continue the appeals.
The primary legal question before the Court was whether the legal heir of a deceased victim-appellant could continue to prosecute an appeal against an acquittal.
Counsel for the Appellant argued that the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, introduced by a 2009 amendment, grants a victim the right to prefer an appeal. This right, they contended, must be interpreted to include the right to prosecute the appeal to its conclusion. They further submitted that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC explicitly includes a “legal heir,” fortifying their claim for substitution. It was also highlighted that the State had not appealed the acquittal, making the victim’s appeal crucial for justice.
Counsel for the Respondents (Accused) vehemently opposed the substitution, relying on Section 394 of the CrPC, which deals with the abatement of appeals. They argued that sub-section (2) of Section 394 states that “every other appeal under this Chapter… shall finally abate on the death of the appellant.” They contended that the proviso allowing a “near relative” to continue an appeal applies only when the appellant is a convict, not a victim.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legislative amendments aimed at strengthening the rights of victims in the criminal justice system.
On the Right of a Victim’s Heir to Prosecute an Appeal:
The bench observed that the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 and the definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) were intended to provide an independent and substantive right to the victim, distinct from the rights of the State or a complainant.
The Court held that interpreting the “right to prefer an appeal” narrowly would defeat the legislative intent. It stated, “The expression ‘right to prefer an appeal’ in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC cannot be limited to mean ‘only the filing of an appeal’. Mere filing of an appeal in the absence of prosecution of an appeal is of no avail. It does not fulfill the object with which the proviso has been added to Section 372 CrPC. Therefore, we interpret the expression ‘the right to prefer an appeal’ to also include the ‘right to prosecute an appeal’.”
The Court reasoned that since the definition of “victim” includes a legal heir, it follows that if a legal heir can prefer an appeal, then upon the death of an original victim-appellant, their legal heir can continue to prosecute it. The bench found no reason to curtail this right, stating that doing so “would make the proviso to Section 372 CrPC wholly redundant.”
The Court also clarified that Section 394(2) CrPC on abatement of appeals does not apply to an appeal filed by a victim. It explained that the context of Section 394 relates to appeals filed by or against an accused, and the expression “every other appeal” must be understood in that context, primarily referring to appeals against conviction under Section 374 CrPC.
On the High Court’s Acquittal Judgment:
The Supreme Court heavily criticized the manner in which the High Court had reversed the conviction. The bench described the impugned judgment as “cryptic and de hors any reasoning.”
It reiterated the duty of a first appellate court, stating, “It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible… The High Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a Trial Court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution’s case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an appeal against a conviction.”
The Court found that the High Court had failed to re-assess the facts, evidence, and findings before arriving at its conclusion, which warranted setting aside the judgment on that ground alone.
The Final Decision
Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- The applications for setting aside the abatement and for substitution were allowed, permitting the son of the deceased appellant to be brought on record to prosecute the appeals.
- The common judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dated September 12, 2012, acquitting the accused, was set aside.
- The criminal appeals were remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal.
- The accused are to remain on bail, subject to executing fresh bonds before the concerned Sessions Judge in Haridwar.
The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case, leaving all contentions open for the parties to argue before the High Court.
