Delhi High Court: Victim Appeal Acquittal Needs No Leave

• The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS on September 2.
• This ruling confirms a victim's independent and unconditional right to appeal against an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation.
• Unlike appeals by the State or a complainant, a victim's appeal does not require prior leave from the court.
• The High Court rejected arguments that this right was discriminatory or could lead to vexatious proceedings, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
• The decision clarifies that limitations on State or complainant appeals cannot be applied to a victim's absolute right to appeal.

The High Court emphasized that the limitations and specific statutory requirements governing appeals filed by the State or a complainant cannot simply be extended or imported into the independent right of appeal afforded to a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The Delhi High Court, on September 2, delivered a significant ruling affirming the constitutional validity of provisions granting victims an independent right to challenge acquittals. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, specifically upheld the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its counterpart, Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This decision establishes that a victim possesses an unconditional right to appeal against an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offense, or an order imposing inadequate compensation, without the requirement of seeking prior leave from the court.

This landmark judgment, for which deliberations were concluded on August 21, directly addressed a challenge to the statutory framework. The High Court explicitly stated that the procedural hurdle of obtaining leave, which applies to appeals filed by the State or a complainant, cannot be imposed on a victim. This distinction underscores the unique and unfettered nature of a victim's appeal against acquittal in India, reinforcing their standing in the criminal justice system.

The High Court's ruling stemmed from a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, which sought to challenge the very provisions that empower victims to appeal. The petitioner's primary contention was against the validity of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS, arguing against the broad scope of a victim's right to appeal against an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offense, or insufficient compensation. As an alternative, the petitioner proposed that this proviso should be restricted solely to cases initiated through private complaints, excluding those arising from police investigations and First Information Reports (FIRs).

The specific circumstances leading to this challenge involved the petitioner's own acquittal by a Trial Court in a case under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. An FIR had been registered on March 11, 2016, followed by a chargesheet, cognizance, and the framing of charges. The Trial Court ultimately acquitted the petitioner on October 16, 2024. Subsequently, the victim, who was also the complainant, lodged an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The petitioner then contested the maintainability of this appeal, asserting that appeals against acquittal in police-initiated cases should fall under Section 378 CrPC, thereby requiring the victim to obtain statutory leave, a condition they argued was absent in the victim's appeal.

The petitioner further argued that the existing statutory scheme created an imbalance, as the State's right to appeal an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC necessitates leave, while a victim could pursue an appeal under Section 372 without such a prerequisite. This perceived disparity, the petitioner contended, could subject an accused person to potentially repeated or vexatious appellate proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner sought a judicial interpretation that would effectively introduce the requirement of leave into the victim's right of appeal, thereby aligning it more closely with the procedural requirements for State-initiated appeals.

The Delhi High Court, however, unequivocally rejected all arguments put forth by the petitioner, characterizing the assertion of discriminatory treatment within the statutory scheme as "absolutely fallacious." In reaching its decision, the Bench placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025). This Supreme Court precedent, as noted by the High Court, clearly delineates the distinct rights of appeal available to the State, the complainant, and the victim.

The High Court emphasized that the limitations and specific statutory requirements governing appeals filed by the State or a complainant cannot simply be extended or imported into the independent right of appeal afforded to a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Supreme Court's interpretation, which the Delhi High Court adopted, highlights the fundamental principle that a victim of crime must possess an absolute right to prefer an appeal, a right that should not be made contingent upon any prior condition, such as obtaining leave. This ruling firmly establishes that there is no fetter on a victim's right to appeal against an acquittal, reinforcing the Delhi High Court's stance on victim rights in criminal procedure.

Lawyers advising victims of crime in India should note that their clients now have an independent and unconditional right to appeal against an acquittal, without the need to seek leave from the court, unlike State or complainant appeals. Defense counsel must be aware that acquittals can be challenged directly by victims, potentially leading to further appellate proceedings without prior judicial screening.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk.