MAHABIR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 29-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1105 : 2025 INSC 120
Mahabir & Ors. 
v. 
State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 5560-5561 of 2024)
29 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the 
impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its 
revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether 
Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a right in favour of victim; Is 
Proviso to s.372 of CrPC an exception; Is Proviso to s.372 is 
retrospective in operation.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.401 r/w. s.397 – In the 
Criminal Revision Application No. 194 of 2006 filed by the 
original de facto complainant before the High Court against the 
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court came 
to be allowed and the appellants herein were held guilty of the 
offence of murder punishable u/s.302 of IPC – Correctness:
Held: s.401 reads the High Court’s powers of revision – s.401(3) lays 
down that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High 
Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction – The 
bar u/s.401(3) CrPC is categorical and express – For High Court to 
treat the revision as an appeal, the condition laid down u/s.401(5) 
CrPC are required to be fulfilled i.e. when the High Court is satisfied 
that application for revision was made under the erroneous belief 
that no appeal lies and in the interest of justice, the High Court 
may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal – A 
reasoned, speaking order was required to be passed recording 
that conditions u/s.401(5) were fulfilled – However, in the instant 
case no such procedure was adopted – The general provision on 
appeals is s.372 CrPC which says that no appeal was permissible 
other than provided for, in law – The Proviso to s.372 CrPC had not 
* Author
1106
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
yet come into effect as on 19.01.2006 when the revision petition 
was filed, for it was added only w.e.f. 31.12.2009 – The statutory 
right of appeal by a victim against such acquittal arose only from 
the date of the amendment w.e.f. 31.12.2009 – As the said revision 
was filed by the father of the deceased on 19.01.2006 well before 
the above amendment, such right was not available at the relevant 
point of time – Therefore, the very first condition u/s.401(5) itself 
would not have been possible to be fulfilled, i.e. the right of the 
victim to appeal did not lie under the Code at the time of filing 
the revision petition – As regards appeals against acquittals, the 
relevant provision for appeals, and specifically for appeal to the 
High Court are detailed out u/s.378 CrPC – Thus, only the State 
had the statutory right to appeal against the order of acquittal in 
2006, and indisputably, the State did not file appeal challenging 
the said order of acquittal – Thus, the High Court committed an 
egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order 
of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too 
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein. 
[Paras 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 46]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.372 – A right 
created in favour of victim:
Held: The significant development that has taken place in this 
provision is that a ‘proviso’ was added by the Amending Act No.5 of 
2009 – The plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons for 
introducing the proviso to s.372 CrPC makes it clear that it wanted 
to confer certain rights on the victims – It has been noted therein 
that the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime, and they don't 
have much role in the court proceedings – They need to be given 
certain “rights” and compensation, so that there is no distortion of 
the criminal justice system – This, by itself, is clear that the object 
of adding this proviso is to create a right in favour of the victim 
to prefer an appeal as a matter of right – It not only extends to 
challenge the order of acquittal, but such appeal can also be filed 
by the victim if the accused is convicted for a lessor offence or 
if the inadequate compensation has been imposed – Thus, it is 
clear as per the golden rule of interpretation, that the ‘proviso’ is a 
substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out 
of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before – Therefore, 
by adding the ‘proviso’ in s.372 of CrPC by this amendment, a 
righ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.