CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SS. 372 PROVISO, 397, 401 – VICTIM’S RIGHT OF APPEAL – DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL – CONDONATION

A. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – SS. 372 PROVISO, 397, 401 – VICTIM’S RIGHT OF APPEAL – DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL – CONDONATION

Criminal Revision under Ss. 397, 401 CrPC challenging order of appellate Court refusing to condone 77 days’ delay in filing appeal by de facto complainant/victim against judgment of acquittal in C.C. No.145 of 2018.

Held:

• By 2009 amendment, proviso to S.372 CrPC confers a statutory right of appeal upon the “victim” against an order of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. Such right is substantive in nature and continues through appeal/revision.

• No corresponding amendment has been made in Art.114 of the Limitation Act to specifically cover victim’s appeal under S.372 proviso. In the absence of an express provision, the substantive statutory right of appeal of the victim cannot be curtailed merely on the ground of delay which is not inordinate and where sufficient cause is shown.

• On facts, judgment of acquittal was dated 13-07-2022; victim was unaware of the date of pronouncement, applied for copy on 12-09-2022, received on 13-10-2022, and filed appeal on 29-10-2022. Effective delay, after excluding copy-time, was held to be about 17 days only and satisfactorily explained (paras 2, 6, 8).

• Appellate Court’s refusal to condone such delay, treating it as inordinate and inadequately explained, ignoring the position of the victim and the copy-application timeline, was held to be perverse and unsustainable (paras 2, 6, 8).

Criminal Revision allowed; order refusing condonation of delay set aside; delay treated as sufficiently explained (paras 8–9).

B. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – VICTIM’S RIGHTS – SCOPE AND CONTENT – PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS FROM INVESTIGATION TILL APPEAL/REVISION

Relying on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, the Court reiterates:

• Rights of a “victim” under amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable and an aspect of human rights, and are independent of the State’s rights; presence of the State in proceedings is not equivalent to hearing the victim (para 2, quoting paras 22–23 of SC).

• A victim has a legally vested right to be heard at every stage post-occurrence – from investigation until culmination of proceedings in appeal or revision.

• “Victim” and “complainant/informant” are distinct concepts; a victim need not be the complainant, and an informant need not be the victim.

In the present case, petitioner is the de facto complainant/victim; his independent participatory and appellate rights must be recognised and cannot be neutralized by procedural hyper-technicality regarding limitation (paras 2, 6, 8).

C. LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – ARTS. 114, 115 – APPEAL BY VICTIM UNDER PROVISO TO S.372 CrPC – PERIOD OF LIMITATION – “REASONABLE PERIOD” – AFFIDAVIT INSTEAD OF FORMAL DELAY PETITION

The Court surveys divergent High Court views:

1. Kerala High Court – Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1642; FB in Sobhanakumari K. v. Santhosh (MANU/KE/2167/2017):

   • Victim’s appeal against acquittal: no specific limitation prescribed in Limitation Act; Article 114 does not strictly apply.

   • Appeal by victim to be filed within a “reasonable period” (90 days), and if beyond, an affidavit explaining delay is sufficient; “delay condonation petition” as such is not necessary and no formal condonation order is contemplated (paras 3–4).

2. HP & Bombay High Courts – Keshavu Devi v. Puran Chand (MANU/HP/0111/2025) and Amit v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0993/2015:

   • Where no express limitation is provided for victim’s appeal, the settled principle is that such appeals must be filed within a reasonable time, guided by legislative policy behind Arts.114 & 115 and, if necessary, delay to be considered with reference to date of knowledge (para 4).

3. Punjab & Haryana High Court (FB) – Tata Steel Ltd. v. Atma Tube Products Ltd., MANU/PH/0175/2013:

   • Reasonable limitation for victim’s appeals, by analogy with Arts.114 & 115, indicated as:
     • Against acquittal: 90 days (if to High Court), 60 days (if to other Court);
     • Other orders: 60 days (to High Court), 30 days (to other Court) (para 5).

Present Court:

• Notes that proviso to S.372 creates a right of appeal for the victim without a corresponding explicit limitation article.

• Holds that this substantive right cannot be defeated on a narrow view of limitation when delay is marginal and properly explained by affidavit, especially given want of notice of judgment and the victim’s status (paras 6, 8).

D. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – NOTICE TO VICTIM / DE FACTO COMPLAINANT – PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT – EFFECT ON LIMITATION

• CrPC contains no provision requiring:
  (i) notice to the victim/de facto complainant at the stage of final arguments, or
  (ii) notice at the time of pronouncement of judgment of acquittal (para 2).

• Where the victim is not on notice of the date of judgment, it is unreasonable to expect him to file an appeal within the prescribed or “reasonable” period without reference to when he acquired knowledge and obtained a copy (paras 2, 8).

• In this case, immediately upon coming to know of the judgment, petitioner applied for certified copy and filed appeal promptly after its supply. This conduct constitutes “sufficient cause” for delay; appellate Court was bound to consider this contextually instead of mechanically branding delay as “inordinate” (paras 2, 6, 8).

E. REVISIONAL JURISDICTION – Ss. 397, 401 CrPC – INTERFERENCE WITH ORDER REFUSING CONDONATION OF DELAY – PERVERSITY

• Revisional Court may interfere where the subordinate Court’s refusal to condone delay:
  • ignores relevant legal standards concerning victims’ rights and limitation,
  • fails to appreciate material facts regarding knowledge of judgment and copy-application, and
  • results in denial of a substantive statutory right of appeal.

• On facts, the Principal Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a victim/de facto complainant, had no notice of the judgment date, acted promptly after knowledge, and that effective delay was marginal and properly explained. Such refusal to condone was held to be perverse (para 8).

Criminal Revision accordingly allowed; impugned order in Crl.M.P. No.707 of 2022 set aside; connected interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs (para 9).