In Shankar Thakur vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's division bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Alok Kumar Pandey concluded that the victim has not been given the right to file an appeal for the enhancement of the sentence under Proviso of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC).
The Gopalganj Trial court convicted Rajiv Ranjan Pathak, the Respondent No. 2/accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections- 304B, 306 of I.P.C. and Sections- 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section-304B of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-306 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment of six months. The Trial court also sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 yrs. and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for committing offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. The Trial court has also sentenced the Respondent No. 2/accused to suffer R.I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of 3 months and, if the fine is realized, the same has been directed to be given to the child of the deceased.
The appellant/victim has preferred the present appeal under Proviso of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the appellant has challenged the order dated April 8, 2024 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gopalganj in Session Trial No. 84 of 2022 to the extent of imposing lesser punishment/sentence to Respondent No. 2/accused.
The counsel for the appellant/victim submitted that the present appeal was filed by the appellant with a grievance that the Trial court ought to have imposed maximum punishment/ sentence provided under Section 304B and Section 306 of I.P.C. looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, urged that the present appeal be admitted and, after hearing the parties, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court be enhanced.
The Court has recorded that from perusal of the judgment dated April 8, 2024 passed by the concerned Trial court, it transpires that the Trial court has convicted the Respondent No. 2/accused for committing offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years. Similarly, he has been convicted for committing the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years. Now, it is the grievance of the appellant/victim that the Trial court has imposed lesser punishment/ sentence and, therefore, punishment imposed by the Trial court be enhanced.
The provisions contained in Section 372 reads:“No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.—No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing in inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.]
From the Proviso contained in the Section, it emerges that the right has been given to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Court under three circumstances: (i) when the accused has been acquitted or (ii) when the accused has been convicted for lesser offence or (iii) when the Trial court has awarded inadequate compensation.
It is apparent that when the Trial court imposed lesser sentence, victim cannot prefer an appeal under Proviso of Section 372 of the Cr.PC. If the facts of the present case and the grievance of the appellant/victim is carefully examined, it is revealed that the appellant has not preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal nor he has preferred the present appeal with a grievance that Respondent No. 2/ accused was convicted for lesser offence nor there is no grievance of the appellant that the Trial court has granted inadequate compensation. The only grievance of the appellant is that the Trial court has imposed lesser sentence.
The Court concluded: "We are of the view that for enhancement of the sentence, victim cannot prefer an appeal under Proviso of Section 372 of the Code. In fact, under Section 377 of the Code, the State can prefer an appeal against an order of sentence imposed by the Trial court. However, such right has not been given to the victim to file an appeal for the enhancement of the sentence under Proviso of Section 372 of the Code. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, the same stands dismissed."
The Court clarified that we have not examined the merits of the case of the appellant and, therefore, it is always open of the appellant to file appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum including filing of Criminal Revision application before this Court for the grievances raised in the present appeal. The judgement was authored by Justice Pancholi.
No comments:
Post a Comment