Trace Your Case

Menu

Category: Appeal

Categories
Appeal

BalaSaheb RangNath Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Bom (Cri) 632

BALASAHEB RANGNATH KHADE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BalaSaheb RangNath Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Bom (Cri) 632

ISSUE:

  • Whether a victim can file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC without obtaining the leave of the High Court, similar to the requirement for the State under Section 378?

RULE:

  • The merits of the matter would be denuded and diluted if leave is necessitated when the legislature refrained from putting any victim on par with the State or private complainant in Section 378 of CrPC.
  • The victims are put in head section to proviso of Section 372 excepting them from the rigours of procedure relating to appeals.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Balasaheb Rangnath Khade, 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.
  • The primary legal question was whether a victim could file such an appeal without seeking the leave of the court, as is required for the State under Section 378 of the CrPC.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that the victim is not required to apply for or obtain special leave of the Court to file any of the appeals under the proviso to Section 372.
  • The Court noted a thin difference between the victim and the complainant.
  • The High Court ruled that complainant in a private complaint would not be able to avoid the scrutiny of the Court for being granted the leave contemplated in Section 384(4) which provision stands.
  • The victim in a private complaint is in control of the criminal prosecution and prosecuted the private complaint as a complainant.
  • The private complainant could not be placed at par with the first informant.
  • The High Court noted that whereas one stands on his own feet and is in control of the proceeding, the other is left to the vagaries of the investigating agency and the prosecuting agency.
  • The victim has an absolute right to prefer an appeal whereas the complainant may present an appeal with the leave of the Court only.
Categories
Appeal

Jagmohan Bhola v. Dilbagh Rai Bhola (2011) Criminal Appeal NO. 793 of 2010, decided on 24.02.2011

JAGMOHAN BHOLA V. DILBAGH RAI BHOLA

Jagmohan Bhola v. Dilbagh Rai Bhola (2011) Criminal Appeal NO. 793 of 2010, decided on 24.02.2011

ISSUE:

  • Whether the appellant qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby granting him the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372?
  • Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 require prior leave of the High Court?

RULE:

  • The Court held that the proviso to section 372 is a special provision distinct from the State’s right under section 378 and deals with three different situations not limited to appeals on acquittals.
  • All the appeals, whether against acquittals, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, have been placed on the same footing.
  • Requiring prior leave in victim appeals under the proviso to Section 372 would be unwarranted, as the legislature did not stipulate such a condition.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Jagmohan Bhola, brother of the deceased Rashmi, filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
  • The appellant challenged the acquittal of Rashmi’s husband, Dilbagh Rai Bhola, and his family members (Respondents) charged under Sections 498A/34 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1806.
  • The appellant filed the appeal by invoking the proviso to section 372 claiming to be a person covered by the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, 1973.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that the appellant, as the brother of the deceased Rashmi, whose parents are deceased and whose minor daughter resides with the acquitted husband, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
  • The High Court held that no limitation can be read into the provisos to section 372 with regard to the requirement of taking leave of the High Court before an appeal is presented to it by a victim.
  • The High Court noted that while section 378 is limited to the State’s right to appeal against acquittals, proviso to section 372 is a special provision including three different situations, all placed on the same footing.
  • Additionally, the Court held that while in the case of an appeal by a convict, admission is more or less a formality, that is not the same in the case of an appeal by a victim.
  • The victim must show prima facie that an error exists in the trial court’s judgment, necessitating a thorough review by the High Court.
Categories
Appeal

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

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.
Categories
Appeal

Ram Kaur v. Jagbir Singh (2010) 3 RCR (Cri) 391

RAM KAUR V. JAGBIR SINGH

Ram Kaur v. Jagbir Singh (2010) 3 RCR (Cri) 391

ISSUE:

  • Whether the appellant qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby granting her the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372?
  • Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 require prior leave of the High Court?

RULE:

  • The Court interpreted that the procedure for appeals by victims under the proviso to section 372 should align with the procedure under Section 378, thereby necessitating prior leave of the High Court.
  • To qualify as a ‘victim’ for an appeal under section 372, a person must have suffered a loss or injury caused by the act or omission of the offender.

FACTS:

  • The respondents (Jagbir Singh and Surinder Singh) were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged murder of Rajinder Singh, the son of the elder brother of the appellant’s husband.
  • The Trial Court acquitted the respondents leading the appellant (Ram Kaur) to file an appeal, claiming to be a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
  • The appellant filed the appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenging the acquittal of the respondents.

HELD:

  • The High Court held that the appellant is not a victim in this case, as she is a near relation of the deceased and cannot be said to have suffered any loss or injury caused due to the act or omission of the offender.
  • The appellant is neither guardian nor legal heir of the deceased.
  • The High Court further held that even though a right to file an appeal has been conferred on the victim against the order of acquittal, the procedure for filing such appeal will be the same as provided under section 378 of the Code.
  • Therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained due to non-compliance with provisions contained in section 378 of CrPC.
  • Additionally, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and opined that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, no second view of the case can be taken.