Summary
The victim’s appeal against acquittal could not be dismissed solely because the State had earlier been refused leave to appeal. The unmarried deceased’s brother qualified as a legal heir within the statutory definition of victim. Applying Mallikarjun Kodagalli, the Court held that he could pursue a regular appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without seeking leave and remitted it for merits consideration.
Issues
- Whether refusal of leave for the State’s acquittal appeal justified rejection of the victim’s separate appeal.
- Whether the deceased’s brother could appeal as a victim without seeking leave.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(wa) and proviso to Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The unmarried deceased’s brother was a legal heir and therefore a victim entitled to a regular acquittal appeal; refusal of the State’s leave application did not extinguish that right. (¶ 7–14)
Held
- The appellant, as the real brother and legal heir of the unmarried deceased, fell within the statutory definition of victim. (¶ 8–9)
- Under Mallikarjun Kodagalli, leave was not required for this victim’s appeal. The High Court’s sole ground—that leave had already been refused to the State—did not justify dismissing it; it should be treated as a regular appeal. (¶ 10–14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and the victim’s appeal remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits.