top of page

WITHOUT SEEKING LEAVE OF THE HIGH COURT, FATHER OF THE DECEASED, HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE AN APPEAL

SATYA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF M.P. AND ORS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1315  OF 2015

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) NO. 7954 of 2014) – 6 OCTOBER, 2015

The father of the deceased has the locus standi to file a suit against the acquittal of the accused without seeking leave from the high court is the subject matter of this case.

The criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court of M.P where it has upheld the judgment of the sessions court by acquitting the respondents. The bench was comprised of T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda

CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT

Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order the appellant being the legal heir of the deceased filed an appeal before the High Court under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended by the appellants that after interpreting the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., has held that the father of the victim has locus standi to prefer an appeal, being a private party coming under the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C without seeking the leave of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C.

LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE

It has held by the Honorable court that there is no need for the victim in terms of definition under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. to seek the leave of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C .

The proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. was amended by Act No.5 of 2009. The said proviso confers a statutory right upon the victim, as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the trial court either acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. must be read along with its main enactment i.e., Section 372 itself and together with sub-Section (3) to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. otherwise the substantive provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. will be rendered nugatory, as it clearly states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by Cr.P.C

Therefore it was held by the honorable Court that ,

“whether the appellant herein, being the father of the deceased, has statutory right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. without obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C.”, this Court is of the view that the right of questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim including the legal heir and others, as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., under proviso to Section 372 , but only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C. The High Court of M.P. has failed to deal with this important legal aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment and order”

Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court and the case is required to be remanded to the High Court to consider for grant of leave to file an appeal by the appellant as required under sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C.

View/ Download the Judgment: SATYA PAL SINGH VS STATE OF M.P. AND ORS

– UKKASH F

Comments


Articles

bottom of page