Date of judgement:
JUNE 10, 2022
Bench:
HONOURABLE JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV and JUSTICE SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV
Parties:
Appellant – Anand Singh
Respondent – The State of Maharashtra
SUBJECT
In this case, the High Court, after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, expressed its opinion that the victim must be provided with the right to appeal for the enhancement of sentence.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant had challenged the order of the Sessions Judge convicting him of Section 328, 382, 417, 448 and 506 of IPC.
- The accused had met with the victim to win her confidence with the motive of deceit and had subsequently stolen the gold ornaments, bank papers, passports and other savings of the accused and her son. He had further threatened the victim with an obscene video recording and defamation.
- On the other hand, the victim filed an appeal for enhancing the sentence of the accused.
- The Court discharged both the appeals through a common judgment.
ARGUMENTS BY THE COMPLAINANT
- The complainant contended that the appellant had sedated her and then stole her gold and silver jewelry and bank papers and other savings.
- He further committed the offence of impersonating and proposed to marry the victim while hiding the fact that he was already married and had two children.
- The victim pleaded that the appellant's sentence must be enhanced in light of the heinous offences committed by him.
- Moreover, the complainant, while relying on the judgment of Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, contended that the proviso to Section 372 is welfare legislation empowering the victim to challenge the Trial Court's adverse order.
- The complainant then referred to the case of Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it was held that the Court must interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to add force to cure and remedy and curb mischief.
- The counsel pointed that prior to the 2006 Amendment, by which the proviso was added to Section 372, the victims had no say in the criminal justice system. The Amendment intended to give the right to appeal to the victims.
- Thus, the intention of the Legislature behind the proviso was to confer the right to appeal against adverse judgment on the victims.
- The counsel thus submitted that Section 372 must be interpreted to confer, on the victim, the right to appeal against inadequate sentences.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 372: No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the appeal filed by the complainant was maintainable?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court observed that since the appellant had completed the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, his appeal had become infructuous. Thus, only the appeal of the complainant was left for consideration.
- The Court noted that Section 372 of CrPC provides that no appeal can be made against any judgment unless it has been provided under any Statute.
- The Court noted that under Section 377 of CrPC, the power to file an appeal for the enhancement of the sentence lies with the State Government.
- The Court referred to the judgment of Parvinder Kansal Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., where the Apex Court had held that the State Government has the authority to prefer an appeal for the enhancement of punishment under Section 372 CrPC. However, the victim has been conferred with no such authority of appeal.
- The Court noted that while the victim must be provided the right to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence, the Court is bound by the order of the Supreme Court and hence the appeal was not maintainable.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the aforementioned observations, the Court dismissed the appeals. There is a need for a more clear interpretation of Section 372 so that the rights of the victim /complainant could be clearly laid down.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
