LexROOPENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2017] 1 S.C.R. 930
ROOPENDRA SINGH
v.
STATE OF .TRIPURA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 690of2017)
APRIL 11, 2017
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 372, 378(4) - Acquittal ull's. 342, 376(2j(b) and 506 !PC
- Appeal thereagainst by the victim uls. 3 72 - Objection raised that
unless leave was granted u!s. 378(4), appeal could not be admitted
- Petition u/s. 482 by victim treating the said criminal appeal u/s.
3721378 - High Court held that no leave was required for the victim
to file such appeal - On appeal, held: Though Amicus Curie
suggested that in view of anomalies in Satya Pal Singh's case, it needs
reconsideration, such course ought not to be adopted - Special
leave petition is pending for last 5 years - Since the victim had
already filed an application to treat the appeal initially filed uls.
372 to be one uls. 3721378, the leave ought _to be granted- Pending
appeal to be considered on merits by the High Court.
ss. 372, 378(4) - Acquittal of accused for the offences
punishable u!ss. 302, 201134 IPC-Appeal u!s. 372 by the informant-
widow of the deceased, rejected - As also leave to appeal against
acquittal not granted to the State - On appeal, held: s. 372 confers
upon a victim a substantive and independent right to maintain an
appeal against acquittal - Widow of the deceased comes within the
definition of 'victim' - Merely because leave to appeal was not
granted to the State, the appeal preferred by victim-informant ought
not to have been rejected by the High Court summarily - Said order
passed by the High Court set aside - Matter remit1ed to the High
Court for fresh consideration, in the light of Satya Pal Singh 's case.
Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2015 (15) SCC
613 - referred to.
2015 (15) sec 613
Case Law Reference
referred to
930
Para4
ROOPENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR.
931
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
A
No. 690 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2012 of the High Court
ofGauhati atAgartala Bench in Crl. Misc. Appl. No. 253 of2011 in Crl.
Appeal No. 23of2011
WITH
Crl.A. Nos. 691-692 of2017.
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Nishant Singla, Rauf Rahim, Advs. for the
B
Appellant.
C
Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Yarsha Poddar, Ms. Nidhi,
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LAUT, J. I. Leave granted 111 both the
D
matters.
I
Criminal Appeal @out of SLP (Crl.) No.7014 of 2012)
2. The appellant was tried in Sessions Trial No.22 (WT/K) 2010
in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura for
having committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2)(b)
and 506 IPC and was acquitted of all the charges leveled against him
vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 28.04.2011. Respondent No.2,
i.e. the victim challenged the acquittal by filing Criminal Appeal No.23
of 2011 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench. This appeal was
filed under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'
for short). When the appeal was listed for admission, an objection was
taken that unless "leave" was granted under Section 378(4) ofCr.P.C.,
the appeal could not be admitted. At this juncture, a petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Respondent No.2 for treating said criminal
appeal under Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C.
3. The matter was contested .. The High Court by its judgment
and order dated 06.06.2012 concluded that there was an unfettered right
conferred upon the victim by Section 372 Cr. P.C. and that no leave was
required for the victim to file such appeal. Consequently, the High Court
observed that there was no necessity for converting the appeal to one
E
F
G
H
932
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I S · !C
under Section 372 read with 378 Cr.P.C. The following observations
are noteworthy:-
"The proviso to Section 3 72 has created a right to appeal
unfett"ered of any leave or sanction and it shall automatically lie
to the forum where an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of
conviction of such court ifthe said appeal against the judgment
and orderofacquittal is filed by the victim as defined in Section
2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.
For the reasons as stated above, this court is of the view
that even though the right to appeal for the victim has beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.