Justice Bakhru in Delhi High Court has held that a victim cannot maintain an appeal even if he feels that the sentence awarded in not adequate. The case is titled as ASHOK MALHOTRA vs STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR decided on 01.11.2019.
Respondent no.2 (the complainant) had stated that the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the complainant’s husband (jeth) lived on the first floor of the property bearing House No. 1/6896, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110031. She had stated that the petitioner desired to live on the ground floor of the said property and wanted the complainant and her family to leave the said property. She alleged that in the aforesaid context, on 02.07.2006 at about 11:45 a.m., the petitioner had hurled abuses at her and had hit the complainant on her face (below her left eye) with a GI Pipe (iron pipe). She had stated that this was informed to the police and the complainant and her husband were taken by the police to GTB Hospital for a medical examination. An FIR (bearing FIR No. 295/2006 under Section 325 of the IPC) regarding the said incident was registered with PS Shahdara and a case was sent to trial.....
Accused was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC on a plea of guilt but on challenge, the same was set aside and matter was directed to be heard afresh. Trial court then convicted the accused for an offence under Section 325 IPC.
Respondent no.2 however remained aggrieved for the reason of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. According to respondent no.2, the said sentence in inadequate. Respondent no.2 also claims that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from disqualification under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The principal question to be addressed in the present petition is whether an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC was maintainable at the instance of respondent no.2 (the victim).
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.2 had preferred an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC for enhancing the punishment imposed on the petitioner as, according to her, the same is wholly inadequate. He submitted that respondent no.2 had made no grievance regarding inadequacy of compensation directed to be paid. On the contrary, she had recorded her statement declining to accept the compensation.
The High Court observed "A plain reading of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC indicates that the victim also has a right to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Court in the following circumstances – (a) acquitting the accused; or (b) convicting the accused for a lesser offence; or (c) imposing inadequate compensation....The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC does not contemplate an appeal against an order of a Court imposing an inadequate sentence/punishment. It is well settled that there is no inherent right of an appeal and the said right is a statutory right and is available only if it is conferred by a statute".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
