Should victim seek leave to appeal in High Court against an order of acquittal? Supreme Court answers

In a judgment which seeks to advance victims’ rights, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court today held that a ‘victim’ as defined in the Cr.P.C. has a right of appeal against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to December 31, 2009, but the order of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court after December 31, 2009. The Court also held that the victim need not apply for leave to appeal against such an order of acquittal..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta. Justice Deepak Gupta dissented from the majority judgment..Background: The appellant Kodagali was the victim of an attack on the night of February 6, 2009. He lodged a First Information Report with the police and after investigations, necessary proceedings were taken before the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot against the accused persons under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (Karnataka) acquitted the accused by a judgment and order dated October 28, 2013. Kodagali preferred an appeal in the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC but it was dismissed as not maintainable by a judgment and order dated June 10, 2014..It was held by the High Court that the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC came into the statute book with effect from December 31, 2009, but the incident had occurred well before that date. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. Reliance was placed by the High Court on National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and another..Kodagali then preferred another appeal in the High Court under the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Cr.PC. By a judgment dated July 4, 2014, the High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The view taken by the High Court was on a plain reading of Section 378(4) of the Cr.PC., namely, that the appeal was not filed in a case instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate..The matter thus came before the Supreme Court. The following were the two questions which the Supreme Court proceeded to address:.Whether a ‘victim’ as defined in the Cr.PC. has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.PC. against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to December 31, 2009, but the order of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court after December 31, 2009?Whether the ‘victim’ must apply for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal?.For answering the first question, the Court analysed a catena of decisions by various High Courts as well as reports by the Law Commission and various committees including the Justice Malimath Committee and Professor Madhava Menon Committee..It culled out the broad stand taken by various High Courts as follows:.Broadly speaking, in the above cases, the view expressed by the High Courts is that if the judgment of the Trial Court is delivered after the proviso came into force, that is, after 31st December, 2009 then, irrespective of the date of the offence, the victim can avail a right of appeal. In some of the decisions it has been held that the right of appeal is not an absolute right conferred on the victim, but it is subject to an application seeking special leave to appeal..It proceeded to opine the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence..In order to buttress this stance, the Court placed heavy reliance on Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on November 29, 1985..“Putting the Declaration to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights.”.Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the current one, the Court held. The proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence..“On the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction”, it concluded..Regarding the second important question pertaining to grant of special leave for filing of appeal against acquittal, the Court ruled that such special leave is not required..Giving reasons for the same, the Court said that the text of Section 372 of CrPC is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined in Section 2(d) of the CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is concerned..The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court..Read the judgment below.