9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1140 - HC - Indian LawsLegal heir - offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. - Held that - Parties are Hindus and the law of heritance applicable to them is the Hindu Succession Act. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act sets out the general rules of succession in case of a male Hindu dying intestate, the property would devolve first up on the heirs specified in Class-I of the schedule and secondly, if there is no heir of Class-I, then up on the heirs specified in Class-II of the schedule; thirdly if there is no heir of any of the classes, then up on the agnates of the deceased and lastly if there are no agnates, then up on the cognates of the deceased. Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act provides the order of succession amongst heirs in the schedule. Those in Class-I take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs, there in the first entry in Class-II are preferred to those in the second entry. Section 12 prescribes the order of succession amongst agnates and cognates. In view of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, the appellant being a Class-II heir would not inherit anything from his deceased brother, as he is survived by his wife. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the property of the victim under the applicable law of inheritance. Though the appellant falls in one of the category of heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, but the Legislature deliberately used the word legal heir , which strictly means a person who is entitled to the property of the victim under the applicable law of inheritance i.e. Hindu Succession Act. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that when it is the intention of the Legislature to give right of appeal to the legal heir, the appellant will not fall within the definition of legal heir and he is not entitled to prefer an appeal to this Court under Section 372 Cr. P.C. against acquittal of the accused. Incident has taken place on 07.12.2007 and the amendment to Section 372 Cr. P.C. has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009, where the victim can prefer an appeal against acquittal. The appellant fails, and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, being the de facto complainant and brother of the deceased, can maintain an appeal against acquittal under the amended Section 372 Cr. P.C. 2. Interpretation of the term "victim" as per Section 2(wa) Cr. P.C. 3. Whether the amendment to Section 372 Cr. P.C. is applicable retrospectively or prospectively. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Appeal by De Facto Complainant: The appellant, claiming to be the brother of the deceased, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment acquitting the respondents-accused for offences under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. The appellant contended that as a victim defined under Section 2(wa) Cr. P.C., he has the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr. P.C. However, the respondents' counsel argued that the appellant does not qualify as a "victim" under the said section, and thus the appeal is not maintainable. 2. Definition and Scope of "Victim": The court examined the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) Cr. P.C., which includes a person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act or omission for which the accused is charged, and extends to their guardian or legal heir. The court also referred to the broader definition of "victim" in the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power by the UN, but noted that the Indian Legislature provided a narrower definition in the Cr. P.C. 3. Legal Heir Interpretation: The court analyzed the term "legal heir" in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, which governs the inheritance rights of Hindus. Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the property of a deceased Hindu male devolves first upon Class-I heirs, and only if there are no Class-I heirs, then upon Class-II heirs. Since the deceased was survived by his wife, a Class-I heir, the appellant, being a Class-II heir, does not inherit any property and thus does not qualify as a "legal heir" under Section 2(wa) Cr. P.C. Consequently, the appellant cannot be considered a "victim" entitled to appeal under Section 372 Cr. P.C. 4. Retrospective or Prospective Application of Amendment: The court also addressed whether the amendment to Section 372 Cr. P.C., which came into effect on 31.12.2009, applies retrospectively to incidents occurring before this date. Citing the judgment in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi, the court concluded that the amendment does not apply to incidents that occurred prior to its enactment. Therefore, the appellant's case, based on an incident from 07.12.2007, does not fall under the amended provision. Conclusion: The court held that the appellant, as a Class-II heir, does not qualify as a "legal heir" under Section 2(wa) Cr. P.C. and thus cannot maintain an appeal under Section 372 Cr. P.C. Additionally, the amendment to Section 372 Cr. P.C. is not applicable retrospectively. As a result, the criminal appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
|
