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

JAGMOHAN BHOLA V. DILBAGH RAI BHOLA

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?

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.

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.

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.