Victims have right to appeal irrespective of being complainant: SC

The Supreme Court has held that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 CrPC, it said.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwnathan has said the right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and such a right in an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

"If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal unless the victim is also the complainant. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists,'' the bench added.

Noting that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from December 31, 2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court, the bench added.

"If we bear in mind the object with which the amendment has been made by the Parliament, we find that the victim has every right to prefer an appeal as against a conviction for a lesser offence or for imposing inadequate compensation or even in the case of an acquittal of an accused as stated in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC,'' the bench said.

The court interpreted the expression ‘the right to prefer an appeal’ to also include the ‘right to prosecute an appeal’.

"If during the pendency of an appeal, the original appellant dies, can it be said that his legal heir cannot be substituted so as to prosecute the appeal further? Any curtailing of the legal right to prosecute an appeal on the death of an original appellant by his legal heir would make the proviso to Section 372 CrPC wholly redundant and in fact may result in a situation which is contrary to the entire object with which the Parliament had inserted the proviso to Section 372 CrPC,'' the bench said.

Court also pointed out Parliament has been conscious to expand the definition of the word ‘victim’ to not only include the victim himself who had suffered the loss or injury but also to include his legal heir.

"When a legal heir, who is not a complainant or an injured victim, can prefer an appeal then why not his legal heir on the death of the legal heir who had preferred the appeal be permitted to prosecute the appeal? We see no reason to curtail the right of a legal heir, who had preferred the original appeal, to be denied the right to prosecute the appeal,'' the bench said.

In the instant case, the court allowed a plea by the applicant, the legal heir of the victim who had preferred the appeal before this court, and is also an injured victim against the Uttarakhand High Court's September 12, 2012 acquitting the accused in a 1992 murder case.

If during the pendency of the special leave petition or the criminal appeal, the appellant (victim) dies, the heir of the appellant must be given an opportunity to prosecute the appeal irrespective of whether the heir is a victim of the criminal offence, the court said.

Although Section 394 (2) states that “every other appeal under this Chapter shall finally abate on the death of the appellant”, it cannot be related to an appeal filed by a victim or on the death of the victim/appellant. This is because Sections 377 and 378 CrPC respectively deal with an appeal filed by the State Government against sentence and an appeal in case of acquittal. Such appeals are filed against the accused and therefore, when the accused dies, such appeals would abate, the court said.

It noted, the expression “every other appeal” must therefore, relate to an appeal which is not filed under Section 377 or Section 378 CrPC. Such an appeal is an appeal against a conviction such as under Section 374 CrPC and on the death of the appellant who is the accused, such appeal would abate, the court said. It accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment, which has reversed the Sessions Court's judgment of conviction and life term, without there being any reasons and marshalling of the facts and the evidence on record.

"There shall be independent application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction. It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt,'' the bench said.

As the first appellate court, supreme court noted the High Court is expected to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence, statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the defence version with due care. While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High Court should, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not, the bench added.

The court remanded the matter back to the High Court to rehear the appeals filed by the accused as expeditiously as possible, by giving an opportunity to the appellant.

Case Title: Khem Singh (D) Through LRs Vs State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc

Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Vishwanathan

Judgment Date: July 31, 2025