Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTMaintainability of appeal - who is the victim - whether the appellant Mahendrasinh Jorubha Zala, who is merely examined as a witness during the course of the trial, cannot be considered as the victim of the crime in question, and as such, cannot validly maintain the appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.? HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appeal is a creature of statute and the said right inheres in no one. Right of appeal cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly provided for by the statute and a remedy of appeal must be legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions. If the express words employed in a provision do not provide for an appeal from a particular judgment and order, the court is bound to follow the express words of the statute. For its maintainability, the appeal must have the clear authority of law. Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., in terms, makes it clear that no appeal can lie from any judgment and order of a criminal court, except provided for by the Cr.P.C. or by any other law for the time being in force. Proviso clause of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the victim to prefer an appeal. Thus, an appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code is also a creature of statute and cannot be assumed until and unless clearly provided under the Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid statement of law no appeal under the Criminal procedure Code can be filed except as provided in the said Code. The said right of appeal cannot be 'read into' any class of citizen/party to a trial if not expressly contemplated under the Cr.P.C. From a bare perusal of the text of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that legislature in its wisdom has given a right of appeal only as provided in the Cr.P.C. and has expressly forbidden any appeal which is not contemplated under the Cr.P.C. Further perusal of Sections 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. manifest the nature of order. The party who is competent to file an appeal against the said order is also clearly and unambiguously stipulated in the Cr.P.C. It is, thus, clear that victim is a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. Thus, whether a person is a victim or not, is required to be judged qua the Charge framed against the accused persons in the concerned trial, in the light of averments made in the charge-sheet filed by the prosecuting agency. The Charge framed by the trial court against the accused must be in respect of that act of the accused, by which the victim has actually suffered any loss or injury. Therefore, it becomes relevant to reproduce the Charge framed against the accused persons in the said sessions cases. An appeal by a witness, who cannot be termed as a victim as defined by Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal would be a fortiori and ex-facie barred under section 372 of the Code. An appeal against an order of acquittal by the appellant, who is not the victim, is not at all maintainable under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold, it being a circuitous attempt to impugn the Judgment of acquittal without any authority of law - Appeal dismissed.
|