SATYAPAL SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 06-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 11S.C.R.439 
SATYA PAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 06, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s1 372 proviso -
Appeal against acquittal- Victim or his relative, whether has c 
statutory right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against 
the acquittal under proviso to s. 372 without obtaining the 
leave of the High Court as required under sub-section (3) to 
s. 378 - Held: Right of questioning the correctness of the 
acquittal order by preferring an appeal to the High Court is D 
conferred upon the victim including the legal heir and others, 
as defined uls. 2(wa), under proviso to s. 372- However, it is 
of)/y after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required 
under sub-section (3) to s. 378 - On facts, High Court in a 
mechanical way dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic E 
order without examining as to whether the leave to file an 
appeal filed by the appellant as provided under sub-section 
(3) to s. 378 can be granted or not - High Court failed to 
exercise its appellate jurisdiction properly in the appeal filed 
by the appellant against the a<Jquittal order - Thus, order F 
passed by the High Court set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
· 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant, being the father of the G 
deceased, has locus standi to prefer an appeal before 
the High Court under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. as 
he falls within the definition of victim as defined under 
Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. to question the correctness of the 
439 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court 
in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 6. [Para 9][446-B-C] 
1.2 The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. confers a 
statutory right upon the victim, as defined under Section 
s 2(wa) Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against an order passed 
by the trial court either acquitting the accused or 
convicting him/her for a lesser offence or imposing 
inadequate compensation. [Para 10] [446-0] 
c 
1.3 The substantive provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. 
clearly provides that no appeal shall lie from any 
judgment and order of a Criminal Court except as 
provided for by Cr.P.C. Further, sub-Section (3) to Section 
378 Cr.P.C. provides that for preferring an appeal to the 
o High Court against an order of acquittal it is necessary 
to obtain its leave. On reference to the rules of 
interpretation of statutes to find out what is the effect of 
the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., it is well established 
that the proviso of a statute must be given an 
E interpretation limited to the subject-matter of the 
enacting provision. It is abundantly clear that the proviso 
to Section 372 Cr.P.C. must be read along with its main 
enactment i.e., Section 372 itself and together with sub-
Secti on (3) to Section 378 Cr.P.C. otherwise the 
F substantive provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. would be 
rendered nugatory, as it clearly states that no appeal shall 
lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except 
as provided by Cr.P.C. [Para 11, 12] [448-D; 451-G-H] 
G 
1.4 As regards the issue "whether the appellant 
being the father of the deceased, has statutory right to 
prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of 
acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without 
obtaining the leave of the High Court as requi¥ed under 
H sub-Section (3) to Section 378 Cr.P.C.", the right of 
SATYA PAL SINGH v, STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
.441 
questioning the correctness of the judgment and order ·A 
of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is 
conferred upon the victim including the legal heir and 
others, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., under 
proviso to Section 372, but only after obtaining the leave 
of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) to B 
Section 378 Cr.P.C. The High Court failed to deal with 
this important legal aspect of the matter while passing 
the impugned judgment and order. [Para 13] [452-A-D] 
1.5 It is clear from a perusal of the impugned C 
judgment and order passed by the High Court that it has 
dealt with the appeal in a very cursory and casual 
manner, without adverting to the legal contentions and 
evidence on record. The High Court in a very mechanical 
way stated that after a perusal of the evidence on record D 
it found no reason to interfere with the decision of the 
trial court as the prosecution has failed to establish the 
charges levelled ag

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