Victim Is Given An Absolute Right To Appeal Against Acquittal: Joseph Stephen Vs Santhanasamy

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
25/01/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE Mr. MR SHAH AND JUSTICE Mr. SANJIV KHANNA

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: JOSEPH STEPHEN AND ORS.
RESPONDENT: SANTHANASAMY AND ORS.

SUBJECT

The sufferer’s right to file a petition against the conviction ruling is an inherent right, as per the Supreme Court, then there is no need to get special leave.

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 378 Of Cr. P.C, Sections - 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, and 506(ii), Section 401 of Cr. P. C, Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka

OVERVIEW

1. Every one of the initial defendants were charged and prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Also, that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, condemned the guilty under the aforementioned charges excluding Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC, and thus discharged the suspect under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC, by judgement dated 28.09.2012.
3. The defendant filed Criminal Appeal No. 92/2012 in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, being offended and unsatisfied with the verdict and sentence of punishment made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli.
4. The plaintiffs (private respondents herein) submitted Criminal Appeal Nos. 108 to 110 of 2012, contesting the ruling under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC.
5. The High Court reversed the very first appellate court's decision and reinstated the trial court's verdict and order of ruling. Initial convicted nos. 6 to 8 had preferred the existing petitions.
6. Being offended and unsatisfied with the disputed general judgement and order given by the High Court, overturning the verdict and so condemning the guilty, whilst exerting the decision of the lower court jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the aggrieved persons filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the High Court was correct in allocating the acquittal judgment and condemning the defendant by transforming the acquittal result into a conviction ruling in the operation of its revisional power under Section 401 Cr.P.C.?
2. Whether a revision application is necessary to be engaged at the example of a party/victim rather than favouring a plea in a situation in which the victim does indeed have an opportunity to appeal against the order of verdict, now since specified in Section 372 Cr.P.C, and the complainant really hasn't acquired of such a solution and has not favoured the appeal?
3. Considering the revision application as a plea of appeal and dealing with it in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. As a result, Will the High Court be required to act accordingly towards the judgement?

JUDGEMENT

1. Addressing the first argument, the judges stated that a High Court can't turn an acquittal into a sentence when exerting revisionary authority under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The court made note of the modification to Section 372 Cr.P.C. after 2009 when addressing the second question. The provisions interpret the said sections and amendments by stating thatthe complainant deserves the right to appeal every ruling acquitting the defendant, jailing for a minor charge, or enforcing insufficient restitution, and such appeal shall lie to the Judge whereby an appeal conventionally lies against any such Court's decision of prosecution.
3. The bench cited the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka and stated that the right given to the victim to hold on to a plea against the ruling of the acquitted is considered an absolute right.
4. The court thus stated that even though, the victims have the mandated right of appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. despite being victims themselves and thus the court believed it was only appropriate to remand the issue to the High Court to consider the revision applications as petitions of appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to start deciding them in compliance with the law and under their own virtues.
5. The same was asked to be in everyone's greatest advantage, both the victims and the accused, because the appellate court, instead of the revisional court, accordingly would have had a broader spectrum and authority.

CONCLUSION

The bench that comprised learned Justices MR Shah And Sanjeev Sanjeev Khanna provided the verdict that stated that the victim doesn't have to ask for special leave to appeal since she has a statutory right to appeal under Section 372 proviso, and the proviso to Section 372 does not impose any conditions on getting special leave to appeal, as per section 378 of the Cr.PC.