Supreme Court: Victim’s Heirs Can Continue Criminal Appeals under Section 372 CrPC:

Supreme Court: Victim’s Heirs Can Continue Criminal Appeals under Section 372 CrPC The case was based on an incident dated 09.12.1992 at Jwalapur, Haridwar, where one person died and others were injured. Three accused persons were convicted by the Sessions Court under several provisions like Sections 302/34, 307 and 452 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and other punishments. HC's Held: In appeal, the High Court, through a judgment dated 12.09.2012, granted the appeals and acquitted the accused. During the pendency of continuation of further proceedings, the said original appellant expired. His son has made applications for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, and substitution to continue with the prosecution of the appeals. Issue Raised: Whether, under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC read with Section 2(wa) CrPC and subject to Section 394 CrPC, the legal heir could be substituted to pursue the appeals, and whether the High Court’s cryptic acquittal order required interference. Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court condoned the delay, set aside the abatement, and allowed substitution of the legal heir as appellant. The Court held that the word “prefer” in the proviso to Section 372 must be read to include “prosecute”. It reasoned that the victim’s right of appeal is substantive and not merely procedural. Referring to Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752 and PSR Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (1980) 3 SCC 141, the Court reiterated that victim rights must be interpreted liberally and the heirs of victims can continue an appeal, just as heirs of the accused can continue appeals under Section 394 CrPC.

The Court held that the term “right to prefer an appeal” under Section 372 CrPC necessarily includes the right to prosecute such an appeal. Denying substitution to legal heirs would render the provision nugatory and contrary to the legislative intent of strengthening victims’ rights. On the merits, the Court found the High Court’s acquittal of the accused unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning and failed to analyse evidence while reversing a conviction and life sentence.

Thus, the applications for substitution and condonation of delay were allowed, abatement was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below