Supreme Court landmark ruling empowers victims of crime and their heirs to appeal against the acquittal of the accused, ensuring equal rights, justice access, and stronger victim-centric criminal justice in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that victims of crime, including their legal heirs, hold the right to file appeals against the acquittal of an accused, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “Lawyers Not Above Law, Phone Calls Can Be Evidence in Criminal Cases”
Supreme Court’s Judgment
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan emphasized that the right of a victim to appeal must stand on par with the right of an accused to challenge a conviction. Just as an accused has an unfettered right to appeal under Section 374 CrPC, a victim too must enjoy the same protection.
The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (introduced in 2009) gives victims an independent right to appeal against acquittals, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation. This right is not conditional, unlike appeals filed by the State or complainant under Section 378 CrPC.
Importantly, the Court expanded the ambit of “victim” (Section 2(wa) CrPC) to include not only those who suffered injury or loss directly but also their legal heirs and guardians. This means that if a victim dies during the pendency of an appeal, their heirs can step in to continue the legal battle.
The Court ruled that a victim’s right to appeal “cannot be circumscribed”. Even if the State does not challenge an acquittal, the victim or their heirs can independently pursue justice.
Case Background
The case arose from a 1992 incident in Haridwar where Khem Singh and his family were attacked, resulting in the death of his brother. While the trial court convicted certain accused, the Uttarakhand High Court acquitted them in 2012. Khem Singh (the injured victim) appealed to the Supreme Court but passed away during proceedings. His son Raj Kumar, also an injured victim, sought to continue the appeal as his legal heir.
The Supreme Court allowed substitution, holding that heirs of victims have the right to prosecute appeals, preventing miscarriage of justice due to technical abatement.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Legal Heir of Khem Singh):
- Right under Section 372 CrPC: Counsel argued that victims have a statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which includes their legal heirs as per Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Prosecution of appeal by legal heirs: The phrase “right to prefer an appeal” must also include the right to prosecute an appeal. Hence, even if the original appellant (Khem Singh) died, his son Raj Kumar, being both a legal heir and an injured victim, should be allowed to continue.
- Failure of the State to appeal: The State did not file an appeal against the High Court’s acquittal, making it essential that the victim’s legal heir be permitted to pursue the case to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
- Judicial precedent: Reliance was placed on PSR Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (1980) 3 SCC 141, where the Court held that even a brother of a deceased could approach the Supreme Court against acquittal.
- Delay should be condoned: The delay in filing substitution applications was due to the long pendency of appeals and should not prejudice the victim’s right.
Respondents (Accused Persons):
- Risk of misuse: Allowing heirs of heirs to continue appeals could open floodgates of litigation, enabling distant relatives to keep cases alive indefinitely
- Appeal abates on death: Citing Section 394(2) CrPC, counsel argued that appeals filed by victims abate on their death, except where the appellant is an accused or convict.
- Proviso limited to accused: The proviso to Section 394 CrPC allows near relatives of a deceased accused to continue appeals, but it does not extend to victims or their heirs.
- Strict interpretation of “victim”: The respondents contended that substitution is not permissible when the appeal is filed by a victim, since the Code does not explicitly provide for such continuation.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on a limited ground and set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment dated 12 September 2012, which had acquitted the accused. The matter has been remanded to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital with a direction to rehear the criminal appeals filed by the accused, ensuring that the appellant (legal heir of the victim) as well as the State are given full opportunity to make their submissions.
The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that all contentions remain open for consideration by the High Court. Considering that the incident dates back to 1992 and the High Court’s judgment is from 2012, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously.
In the interim, the accused will remain on bail but are required to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and execute fresh bonds of Rs 15,000 each with two sureties. With these directions, the appeals were allowed and disposed of.
CASE TITLE:
KHEM SINGH (D) THROUGH LRs VERSUS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) & ANOTHER ETC.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1330-1332 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Evidence in Criminal Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES