2016 (11) TMI 1736 - HC - Indian Laws

Victim as contemplated by Section 2 (wa) of Indian Penal Code - Locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court/direct connection with the offence and only that person can file an application before court), to challenge the order - right to prefer appeal under the proviso of section 372 of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - What we find from a reading of the judgments of various High Courts is that all the judgments deal with definition of 'victim' in respect of an offence of murder without considering the impact of the nature of an offence of which one is a victim. There are various forms of offences provided under Indian Penal Code as well as other Special Laws. An offence may be against body, mind, property, etc. In that context injury caused by the offence would vary. Further, there may be crime against society, which can be termed as a victim less crime because there is no victim in particular. In the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Raju, 2013 (8) TMI 1174 - SUPREME COURT , the petitioner, in a public interest litigation had sought an authoritative pronouncement on the true purport and effect of different provisions of the JJ Act so as to take a juvenile out of the purview of the said Act. The High Court had declined to answer the question raised on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the JJ Act against the order as may have been passed by the Board. The inevitable conclusion is that remedy of appeal is a statutory remedy and powers of Appellate Court under Code of Criminal Procedure is an ordinary appellate power, which is regulated by the provisions meant for appeal against acquittal/conviction under Chapter XXIX (Section 372 to 394) of the Code. Victim - HELD THAT - The victim means the actual sufferer of offence (receiver of harm caused by the alleged offence) and no person other than actual receiver of harm can be treated as victim of offence, so as to provide him/ her a right to prefer appeal under the proviso of section 372. In absence of the direct sufferer or in a case where the direct sufferer suffers a disability his or her legal heir or guardian would qualify as a victim. Legal heir of actual Victim under Section 2 (wa) - HELD THAT - The expression Legal Heir has to be understood in its ordinary or natural sense. That is if any person is able to establish his status as heir recognized by law, he can be termed as Legal Heir and the preferences / restrictions / categories provided under any statute / personal law governing succession/ inheritance will have no consequence. This interpretation of expression Legal Heir would not be a result of liberal construction but would be a consequence of ordinary or natural meaning of the expression Legal Heir . Guardian of Actual Victim under Section 2 (wa) - HELD THAT - The word Guardian includes a Judicial Guardian (appointed by law), a legal Guardian, a Natural Guardian. The proviso of Section 372 is an exception to the general law and same confers on a victim a right to appeal against acquittal, which is subject to the grant of leave by the Court. The first part of the definition of 'victim' as given under Section 2 (wa) (i.e. Victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged), is required to be construed in its literal sense and no liberal interpretation is required, Accordingly, only such person would be treated as victim , who is the subject-matter of trial being direct sufferer of crime in terms of loss or injury caused to his own body, mind, reputation and property and such loss or injury is one of the ingredient of the offence for which the accused person has been charged and, therefore, any other person cannot be accepted as victim within the first part of Section 2 (wa) for the purposes of maintaining appeal. The second part that is includes his or her guardian and Legal Heir would come into play when the actual sufferer is absent or suffers disability. Thus, ictim means the actual sufferer of offence (receiver of harm caused by the alleged offence) and no person other than actual receiver of harm can be treated as victim of offence, so as to provide him /her right to prefer appeal under the proviso of section 372, though, in his or her absence or disability, his legal heir or guardian would qualify as victim and have a right to appeal. A person who claims himself to be 'guardian' or 'legal heir' of actual victim (direct sufferer), would be able to maintain appeal provided he establishes his claim as such before the court in his application by disclosing his particulars; relationship with the direct sufferer; and the grounds on which such claim of being legal heir or guardian is based.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The scope of the right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. for individuals other than "guardian" or "legal heir."
3. Interpretation of the term "legal heir" for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
4. The necessity of obtaining leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The pivotal question in this case is to determine who falls within the definition of "victim" as contemplated by Section 2(wa) of the Code, inserted by Act No. 5 of 2009. The court examined whether the term "victim" includes any person other than a "guardian" or "legal heir" for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the term "victim" should be interpreted in its literal sense, meaning the actual sufferer of the crime, who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. Thus, the definition does not extend to any person who has faced emotional harm or injury unless they are the direct sufferer of the crime.

2. Scope of the right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. for individuals other than "guardian" or "legal heir":

The court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right and can only be availed by persons explicitly provided for by law. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. confers a right to appeal to the "victim" against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offense, or imposing inadequate compensation. This right is subject to the grant of leave by the court. The court clarified that the term "victim" includes the actual sufferer of the crime and, in their absence or disability, their "guardian" or "legal heir." Therefore, individuals other than the guardian or legal heir do not have the right to appeal under this proviso.

3. Interpretation of the term "legal heir" for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.:

The court examined the meaning of "legal heir" and concluded that it should be understood in its ordinary or natural sense. The expression "legal heir" includes any person who is recognized by law as an heir, without creating categories or preferences as provided under civil laws governing succession or inheritance. The court referenced various definitions from legal dictionaries and concluded that the term "legal heir" should not be restricted to specific classes of heirs but should include any person legally entitled to inherit the property of the deceased.

4. Necessity of obtaining leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.:

The court addressed the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and referenced the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P. & others, which clarified that the proviso to Section 372 must be read along with its main enactment and together with sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is not an independent statutory right but an exception to the general rule, and obtaining leave to appeal is necessary.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code includes only the actual sufferer of the crime and, in their absence or disability, their "guardian" or "legal heir." The right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is subject to the grant of leave by the court, and the term "legal heir" should be understood in its ordinary sense without restrictions or categories. The reference was answered accordingly, affirming the ratio of the Division Bench in the case of Edal Singh vs. State of U.P. & others.