Summary
The Supreme Court held the victim’s appeal maintainable where the alleged offence preceded 31 December 2009 but acquittal followed that date. The relevant event was the judgment giving rise to the appeal. The majority held that leave was unnecessary for the victim’s appeal under the proviso to section 372 CrPC. Deepak Gupta J. agreed on temporal applicability but dissented on leave, requiring it for a High Court acquittal appeal. The matters were remitted for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether the victim’s statutory appeal covered an acquittal after commencement of the amendment for an earlier offence.
- Whether leave was required for the victim’s appeal to the High Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 372, proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The victim’s right attached to the post-amendment acquittal despite the earlier offence date. The majority treated the proviso as an independent appellate right without a leave requirement in the present police case. (¶¶ 10, 23, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79)
- Section 378(3) and (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The majority distinguished the special-leave provision for complaint cases from the present FIR-based proceeding. Deepak Gupta J. dissented on leave, reading the provisions together to require leave for a victim’s High Court appeal against acquittal. (¶¶ 78, Deepak Gupta J., 2, Deepak Gupta J., 3, Deepak Gupta J., 5, Deepak Gupta J., 12, Deepak Gupta J., 13, Deepak Gupta J., 18, Deepak Gupta J., 20)
Held
- The date of acquittal, rather than the offence or FIR, determined applicability of the victim’s right. The acquittal here followed 31 December 2009, so the earlier occurrence did not defeat maintainability. (¶¶ 10, 67, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77)
- The majority construed the proviso beneficially and according to its language. Its independent right did not import the leave restriction, and section 378(4) concerned a complaint to a Magistrate, distinct from registration of an FIR. (¶¶ 37, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78)
- Deepak Gupta J. agreed that the right arose upon the post-amendment judgment, but dissented on the leave issue. In his view sections 372 and 378 required leave before the victim’s High Court appeal could be entertained, protecting the reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal. (¶¶ Deepak Gupta J., 2, Deepak Gupta J., 4, Deepak Gupta J., 9, Deepak Gupta J., 17, Deepak Gupta J., 18, Deepak Gupta J., 20)
- The appeals were allowed and the High Court orders set aside. The victim’s challenge to acquittal was remitted to the High Court for hearing and decision on merits; the Supreme Court did not reverse the acquittal on the evidence. (¶¶ 15, 79)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside and victim’s appeal against acquittal remitted for decision on merits. Majority held leave unnecessary; Deepak Gupta J. dissented on that requirement while agreeing on temporal applicability.