CASE TITLE:
Triyugi Nath Tiwari Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
DATE OF ORDER:
21st July 2022
BENCH:
Justice Vivek Kumar Birl and Justice Vikas Budhwar
PARTIES:
Petitioner : Triyugi Nath Tiwari
Respondent : State Of U.P.
SUBJECT
According to the Allahabad High Court, the 2009 addition of a proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which gave the "victim" a substantive right of appeal, was not a retrospective change.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 372 CrPC
- Section 372 of the CrPC was introduced through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005.
- It should be noted here that the proviso mentioning the right to appeal was introduced to Section 372 CrPC on December 31, 2009, making that date the deciding date for assessing whether a "victim" has the right to pursue an appeal under that section.
- Only the victim {defined in Section 2(wa) of the code} is granted the right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- A conviction for a lesser crime, an order of acquittal, or inadequate restitution from the court can all be asked by the victim under Section 372.
BRIEF FACTS
A challenge to the 2004 judgement and order issued by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, whereby the accused-respondents were absolved of the violations of Sections 302/34 IPC was being heard by the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birl and Justice Vikas Budhwar. The appeal was brought by the "victim" under Section 372 of the CrPC.
ISSUES RAISED
The issue here was whether the petition challenging the impugned 2004 judgment filed with a delay of over 21 years maintainable or not.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court noted that, in addition to the Stamp Reporter reporting a 6228-day delay in filing the appeal, the appeal itself was not maintainable because, at the time the Court below issued the acquittal order, Section 372 CrPC did not contain a proviso allowing the victim to appeal against such an acquittal order.
CONCLUSION
- As a result, it was determined that the appeal, which was brought after a delay of more than 21 years and challenged a 2004 judgement that had been rendered far earlier than the revision (adding the proviso in the year 2009 with effect from December 31, 2009), was not maintainable.
- The appeal was dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
