In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that a "victim" of an offence possesses the statutory right to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), irrespective of whether they are the complainant in the case. This ruling underscores the broad interpretation of the term "victim" and reinforces the legislative intent to empower individuals who have suffered harm due to criminal acts to seek justice through the appellate process.
The case at hand involved a cheque dishonour matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the trial court acquitted the accused. The complainant, who was also the payee of the dishonoured cheque, sought to challenge the acquittal. The Supreme Court, in its deliberations, emphasized that the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC is expansive and includes any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the commission of an offence. This inclusive definition extends the right to appeal to individuals who may not have initiated the complaint but have nonetheless been adversely affected by the criminal act.
The Court further observed that the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC in 2009 was a legislative measure aimed at providing victims with a direct and unconditional right to appeal against acquittals. Prior to this amendment, only the State had the right to appeal against acquittals, leaving victims without a direct remedy. The 2009 amendment sought to rectify this imbalance by empowering victims, thereby ensuring that those who have suffered due to criminal acts have an avenue to challenge acquittals that may undermine their interests.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court drew a parallel between the rights of victims and those of the accused. Just as an accused person has the right to appeal against a conviction under Section 374 of the CrPC without any preconditions, a victim too should have an equivalent right to appeal against an acquittal. The Court noted that imposing conditions, such as requiring leave to appeal, would be inconsistent with the legislative intent behind the 2009 amendment. Therefore, the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC is absolute and does not necessitate prior approval or leave from any court.
The judgment also addressed the procedural aspects related to the filing of appeals by victims. It clarified that victims are not required to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, which applies to complainants in cases instituted upon complaint. Instead, victims can directly file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372, streamlining the process and reducing procedural hurdles. This approach aligns with the broader objective of facilitating access to justice for victims and ensuring that they are not unduly burdened by technicalities that could impede their right to seek redress.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It affirms that the legal system recognizes the harm suffered by victims and provides them with the means to challenge judicial decisions that may adversely affect their interests. By granting victims an unconditional right to appeal, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that justice should be accessible to all, particularly those who have been wronged by criminal conduct.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision marks a progressive step towards a more victim-centric criminal justice system. It ensures that victims are not relegated to a secondary status and are afforded the same opportunities to seek justice as the accused. This judgment not only empowers victims but also serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of individuals who have suffered due to criminal acts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.