The Patna High Court held that a victim cannot maintain an appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code solely for the purpose of seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on a convict. The Court clarified that the right of appeal granted to a victim under this provision is limited in scope and does not extend to challenging the adequacy or leniency of the sentence awarded by the trial court. The ruling came while examining an appeal filed by a victim who contended that the punishment imposed was insufficient and sought enhancement of the sentence through the appellate process.
The Court examined the language and structure of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly the proviso inserted by way of amendment, which confers a right of appeal upon victims in specified circumstances. It observed that the proviso clearly enumerates only three situations in which a victim may file an appeal: where the accused has been acquitted, where the accused has been convicted for a lesser offence, or where inadequate compensation has been awarded. According to the Court, these three categories exhaustively define the contours of a victim’s appellate rights under the provision.
The High Court emphasised that the right of appeal in criminal law is entirely statutory and cannot be assumed or expanded beyond what is expressly provided by the legislature. It noted that Section 372 does not mention inadequacy of sentence as a ground on which a victim may appeal. As a result, an appeal that is confined only to seeking enhancement of sentence does not fall within the statutory framework of Section 372 and is therefore not maintainable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court reiterated that the Criminal Procedure Code draws a clear distinction between the rights of the State and the rights of the victim in criminal appeals. While victims are granted a limited right to appeal under Section 372 in specific situations, the power to seek enhancement of sentence is vested in the State under a different provision of the Code. The Court underscored that this legislative scheme reflects a conscious policy choice and must be respected by courts while interpreting the scope of appellate remedies.
The Court also noted that dissatisfaction with the quantum of sentence, by itself, does not give rise to a statutory right of appeal for a victim under Section 372. Even if a victim believes that the punishment imposed is too lenient, such grievance cannot be addressed through an appeal under this provision unless it is accompanied by one of the grounds specifically recognised by the proviso, such as conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation.
Applying these principles to the case before it, the Patna High Court held that the victim’s appeal, which sought only enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial court, was not maintainable in law. Since the appeal did not challenge an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence, or the adequacy of compensation, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 372. The Court therefore declined to entertain the appeal on merits.
The ruling reinforces the settled legal position that victims’ appellate rights under the Criminal Procedure Code are limited and clearly defined. It affirms that courts cannot enlarge those rights by judicial interpretation and that remedies relating to enhancement of sentence must be pursued through the avenues specifically provided by law. The judgment thus clarifies the boundaries of victim participation in criminal appellate proceedings and reiterates the statutory framework governing appeals under the Code.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.