S. 372 CrPC | Delhi HC Reserves Verdict On Challenge To Victim's 'Unfettered' Right To Appeal Against Acquittal

The Delhi High Court on August 20 reserved its verdict on a challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which gives a 'victim' a right to appeal against an order acquitting an accused, convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.

The challenge raises the question of whether the provision creates an imbalance between the rights of an acquitted accused and the State, particularly since the State must obtain leave to appeal from an acquittal, whereas a victim can exercise the right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without such leave.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka and argued that the present legal position has resulted in an “unbalanced” framework for acquitted accused persons.

Petitioner questions the victim's right to appeal without leave

Counsel referred to the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which provides that a victim has a right to appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.

The petitioner argued that the provision, as presently understood, gives a victim an avenue to challenge an acquittal without the leave requirement applicable to the State under Section 378 CrPC.

Counsel submitted that this becomes particularly significant because an acquitted accused enjoys a “double presumption of innocence” following acquittal by the trial court.

The petitioner argued that earlier safeguards under Section 378(3) CrPC required leave for an appeal against acquittal, but the victim is now able to pursue an appeal without a similar filter.

Court rejects petitioner's reading of Mallikarjun Kodagali

A significant exchange took place over paragraph 78 of Mallikarjun Kodagali. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court's observation contrasting Section 372 with Section 378(4) CrPC and sought to argue that the distinction demonstrated the scope of the victim's appeal under Section 372.

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, however, pointed out that the Supreme Court's observation was specifically in relation to Section 378(4), which refers to an acquittal in a case instituted upon a complaint.

The Court noted that the word “complaint” occurs in Section 378(4), but not in Section 372.

When counsel persisted with the interpretation, the Judge stated that the reading being advanced was “absolutely not correct”, stressing that the Supreme Court judgment had to be read alongside Sections 378(4) and 372.

Section 138 NI Act case forms part of petitioner's argument

Counsel thereafter referred to the Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act context in Mallikarjun Kodagali, arguing that the legal position arising from a private complaint had subsequently been extrapolated to police cases.

The petitioner contended that this created an anomaly: while the State has to approach the High Court and obtain leave to challenge an acquittal, a victim does not have to undergo the same process.

Counsel argued that this could allow a private complainant to pursue an acquitted accused for prolonged periods and expose the person to harassment, extortion or blackmail.

The petitioner also relied upon the Rajya Sabha debates surrounding the introduction of the proviso to Section 372, arguing that the legislative focus had shifted towards victim rights without adequately balancing the rights of acquitted accused persons.

Petitioner alleges a possible drafting error

Counsel further argued that there may have been an error in drafting the proviso to Section 372. According to the submission, the words requiring the appeal to lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the “order of conviction” should have referred to an "order of acquittal".

The petitioner argued that the provision consequently requires examination to ensure a proper balance between victim rights and the rights of an accused who has already secured an acquittal.

Court asks State to address alleged imbalance

The Court specifically asked the State whether the alleged imbalance, where the State requires leave but the victim does not, had been considered in earlier judgments.

The State's counsel referred to the evolution of the law, submitting that initially even a victim was understood to require permission to appeal under Section 372.

The Judge observed that the victim's right to appeal against an acquittal had not previously existed in the same manner and had been introduced through the proviso to Section 372.

After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on the challenge.