Trace Your Case

Menu

BHAVUBEN DINESHBHAI MAKWANA V. STATE OF GUJARAT

Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat (2012) 238/2012

ISSUE:

  • Whether an appeal filed by a victim under proviso of Section 372 CrPC is not maintainable if the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose?
  • Whether an appeal filed by the State not be entertained on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim is admitted by the Court?
  • Whether the appellant is required to seek leave of the High Court before filing an appeal challenging acquittal under proviso to Section 372?

RULE:

  • The Court held that the victim’s right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is a substantive and independent statutory right and is not contingent upon the State’s right to appeal.
  • The rights of the victim and the State operate in different spheres and do not oust each other.
  • The appeals preferred by the Victim and the State against the same order for the same purpose are maintainable and can proceed concurrently.
  • The provision of a special leave does not apply to an appeal preferred by a victim against acquittal if he is not the complainant.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana, the widow of the deceased, filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case.
  • Simultaneously, the State of Gujarat also filed an appeal against the same acquittal order.
  • This scenario raised questions regarding the rights of victims to appeal independently of the State and the procedural requirements for such appeals.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that a victim can independently file an appeal against an acquittal, irrespective of whether the State has filed an appeal.
  • The High Court clarified that the filing of an appeal by the State does not bar the victim from filing a separate appeal against the same acquittal order.
  • It distinguished between victims who are also complainants and those who are not.
  • The High Court held that a victim who is also the complainant must seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC when appealing against an acquittal.
  • However, a victim who is not the complainant does not require such leave and can directly file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372.
  • For the appeal against inadequacy of compensation or punishment on a lesser offence, no leave is necessary at the instance of the victim, whether he is a complainant or not.