The Delhi High Court has held that a victim cannot maintain a second appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), against a judgment of a Sessions Court that confirms the acquittal of an accused passed by a Magistrate. Delivering the verdict, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants a victim the right to appeal only once against an order of acquittal and does not contemplate successive appeals. Consequently, the High Court dismissed a criminal appeal preferred by the husband of a road accident victim seeking to challenge the concurrent findings of acquittal.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on August 24, 2005, around 1:00 PM, when Shahin Praveen was returning after picking up her daughter from school. Near Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Sai Baba Mandir Bus Stand, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi, a Toyota Corolla car bearing registration number DL 7CG 0316 allegedly struck her down, resulting in injuries to which she later succumbed. Her daughter, Ayesha, was also injured in the incident.
Following information received via DD entry, an FIR (Crime No. 227/2005) was registered at Lodhi Colony Police Station for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the accused, Vibhor Ahluwalia.
During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he claimed innocence, stating that he was neither driving the car nor responsible for the incident, and had merely taken the injured to Mool Chand Hospital as a law-abiding citizen. On November 5, 2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) CrPC. The victim’s husband (PW1) challenged this acquittal before the Sessions Court, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, dismissed the appeal on October 28, 2022, confirming the acquittal. The husband then filed a second appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Senior Counsel appearing for the accused argued that the appeal was not maintainable. It was submitted that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC confers upon a victim a right of appeal only once and does not permit successive appeals against the same order of acquittal. Having already exhausted the statutory remedy before the Sessions Court, the appellant had no further right to maintain a second appeal. Reliance was placed on rulings including Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu, Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala, and Mahesh v. Gunderao.
Conversely, counsel for the appellant maintained that the appeal was maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, arguing that the provision grants a victim the right to prefer an appeal against any order acquitting the accused to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against a conviction. The appellant relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Examining the precedent, the High Court observed that the dictum in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy was not applicable to the present case. In Joseph Stephen, the appellate court had reversed a conviction to an acquittal, prompting a revision application, whereas in the present case, the Sessions Court had affirmed the trial court’s order of acquittal.
Highlighting the legal position, the Court observed:
“The dictum in Joseph Stephen (Supra) is apparently not applicable to the facts of the present case. Unlike in the aforesaid case, the appellate court in this case has confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. There cannot be any second appeal in such circumstances.”
Referring to similar holdings, including the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala, the Court concluded that the second appeal was not maintainable and disposed of the matter accordingly. The Court directed the registry to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment to the appellant and closed all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Talat Shahedi v. Vibhor Ahluwalia & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.A. 884/2023 and CRL.M.A. 28555/2023
Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: August 20, 2026
