9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Determination of the applicable period of limitation for an appeal filed by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Definition and recognition of "victim" under Section 372 and Section 2(wa) of the Code. 4. Applicability of Muslim Personal Law in determining legal heirship and victim status. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Appellant argued that there was no prescribed period of limitation for a victim's appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Appellant suggested that the 90-day period applicable to State or Central Government appeals against acquittals should similarly apply to victim appeals. The Respondents contended that the period should be 60 days, akin to appeals by convicts, as both are private individuals. The Court recognized the confusion regarding the limitation period and condoned the 23-day delay, emphasizing fairness and justice, especially since the reasonable period of limitation was inferred only through this decision. 2. Determination of the Applicable Period of Limitation: The Court examined the absence of a specific limitation period for victim appeals under the proviso to Section 372. It considered analogous provisions, noting that appeals by convicts and complainants typically have a 60-day limitation period, while State appeals have a 90-day period. Given that victims, like complainants, are private individuals, the Court inferred a reasonable limitation period of 60 days for victim appeals. This inference was based on the principle that private individuals should have a shorter limitation period compared to the State or Central Government. 3. Definition and Recognition of "Victim": The Court addressed whether the Appellant, as the father of the deceased, could be regarded as a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372. Referring to Section 2(wa) of the Code, which defines "victim" as someone who has suffered loss or injury due to the accused's actions, including their legal heir, the Court determined that the Appellant could be considered a victim. This was based on the interpretation that a legal heir is entitled to inherit the victim's estate, and in the absence of the direct victim (the deceased daughter), the Appellant, as a legal heir, qualified as a victim. 4. Applicability of Muslim Personal Law: The Court applied Muslim Personal Law to ascertain the Appellant's status as a legal heir. Under this law, the deceased's estate would typically be inherited by her husband and mother. However, given that the Respondents were charged with offenses related to the deceased's death, they were disqualified from inheritance. Thus, the Appellant, as the father, was considered a residuary heir, inheriting the estate. This legal status qualified him as a victim under the proviso to Section 372, allowing him to file the appeal. In conclusion, the Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, recognizing the Appellant as a victim and establishing a 60-day reasonable limitation period for victim appeals under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.
|
