Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
5. The decision in Sutyu Pu/ Singh shows that reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of High Court of Delhi in Rum Plwlv. Stute u11d others', according to which the right to prefer an appeal conferred upon a victim by virtue of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is an independent statutory right and there is no need for the victim to seek leave of the High Court. Said decision of the Full Bench of the High · Court ofDelhi was not found to be legally correct by this Court in Satya Pal Singh.
6. When this matter came up for final hearing, the learnedAmicus Curiae submitted that the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh required reconsideration. It was submitted that proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is an independent provision conferring a substantive right on the '2015 sec Online Delhi 9802~2015 221 DLT I c c [2017] I S.C.R. victim to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation. It was further submitted that appeals under Sections 373, 374, 377, 379 and 380 in Chapter XXIX of Cr.P.C. constitute one category of appeals which can be presented without obtaining leave of the appellate court while appeals under Section 378 whether by the State Government, Central Government or by the Complainant against the order of acquittal constitute another category of appeals which are circumscribed by the requirement of obtaining leave of the High Court.
In his submission, the appeal under proviso to Section 372 falls in the first category of appeals and as rightly observed by the High Court ofGauhati in the present case, no leave of the High Court was required. The learned Amicus Curiae then traced the legislative history and submitted that in the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure as originally enacted no right was conferred on the Complainant to file an appeal against acquittal, which forthe firsttime was introduced in Section 4 I 7 of the I 898 Code in the year 1955. He further submitted that though the Law Commission in its 41" Report had rejected the suggestion of permitting the victim to file appeals against orderofacquittal, in its I 54'" Report the Law Commission had relied on the 1985 Union Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for victims ofcrimes and abuse of power. The Report of the Law Commission noted that the victims were the worst sufferers in the crime and needed to be given certain rights and compensation.
The learned Amicus Curiae then stated that these developments led to the constitution of Malimath Committee which recommended that the victims should have the right to file appeal against acquittal and that is how the proviso to Section 372 came to be inserted by Amendment Act of2008. He laid emphasis on following portion from the Objects and Reasons which weighed with the Parliament while inserting the proviso:- "At present, the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime and they do not have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system." He submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly stressed that the administration of Criminal Law has tendency to distort and therefore the victims are the worst sufferers and as such the Parliament had given an unrestricted right to the victim to prefer appeal against acquittal. ROOPENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
7. In his written submissions the learned Amicus Curiae sought . to bring out the anomalies in the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh in following tenns:- "( I) This Hon'ble Court in Satya Pal Singh's case has missed out the significance of the word "conviction" used in the proviso to S. 372 Cr. P.C. Under the code, against a conviction, an· appeal does not necessarily lie to the High Court. Section 374 lays down different foras for preferring an appeal against conviction. i If a per~on is convicted 'in a trial held by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal Jurisdiction, an appeal lies to the c Supreme 'court: ii Any person convicted by the Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge, an appeal lies to the High Court. iii If a person is convicted by any Court in which the sentence of Imprisonment for more than 7 years is passed he may appeal to the High Court. iv Any person convicted in a trial held in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or second class, his appeal will lie to the Court of Sessions. v If any person is sentence by the aforesaid Judicial authorities i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate, Assistant Judge, Sessions Judge and sentenced under Section 325, an appeal lies to the Court of Sessions. vi Any person convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate u/S 360 an appeal lies to the Court of Sessions. (2) The Proviso to Section 372 not only deals with filing of appeal by the victim but it also provides for Forum. The Forum of such appeals is same as in case of appeals against conviction. Section 374 shows that some appeals against conviction lie before Session Court. Therefore, some appeals of the victim against acquittal would lie before the Sessions Court. In respect of such appeals there is no question of obtaining leave. This creates serious anomaly. c [2017] I S.C.R. (3) The proviso to S. 372 deals with the rights of the victim to file an appeal against the following order: i. against acquittal ii. against conviction for a lesser offence and :ii. against imposition of inadequate compensation As far as imposing inadequate compensation. is concerned, the Government has no role to play. Once it is laid down that a right of appeal under the proviso is controlled by Section 378 (3) Cr. P.C. then such a stipulation would apply to appeals against all the three orders."
8. Though the learned Amicus Curie has suggested that these matters be referred to larger Bench to reconsider the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh, we do not think that such course ought to be adopted in the present matter.The special leave petition has been pending in this Court for last 5 years. In any case, in the present matter the victim had preferred an· application to treat the appeal initially filed under Section 372 to be one under Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C. Though the High Court observed that no such leave was necessary, the matter now assumes different complexion in the light of the decision in Satya Pal Singlt. However, since there was already an application on behalf of the victim to treat the appeal under Section 3 72 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C., in our considered view the leave ought to be granted, which we presently do. The pending appeal shall now be considered on merits by the High Court. This appeal, thus, stands disposed of. II Criminal Appeals arising out ofSLP{Crl) Nos.8316-17 of2012
9. These appeals, at the instance of the original informant question the orders dated 20.06.2012 and 28.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By order dated 20.06.2012 Criminal Application No.399 of2012 preferred by State of Maharashtra seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur in Sessions Trial No.6 of201 I acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 · !PC was rejected by the High Court. The appeal under Section 3 72 Cr.P.C. preferred by the Informant, who also happens to be the widow of the deceased was rejected in the light of the earlier rejection dated ROOPENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 20.06.2012. It appears that State of Maharasthra did not challenge the rejection of their application seeking leave to appeal. This Court issued notice in the aforesaid matter on 12.10.2012 and the matter was thereafter tagged with SLP(Crl) No. 7014 of2012, namely, the earlier matter arising out of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court.
10. Section 3 72 Cr.P.C. has conferred upon a victim a substantive and independent rightto maintain an appeal against acquittal. The widow of the deceased in the present matter comes within the definition of "victim" as incorporated in Section 2(wa). Merely because leave to appeal was not granted to the State to prefer an appeal against acquittal, the appeal preferred by the victim Informant ought not to have been rejected by the High Court summarily. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the High Court rejecting Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to the High Court to consider the matter for grant of leave to appeal to the appellant in the light of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh.
11. These appeals are thus allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. Before we part, we must express and record our sincere appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The Court is deeply grateful to him. Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed. c