Harm To Mind Or Reputation Must Be Perceivable From Materials On Record For 'Victim' To Appeal U/S. 372 CrPC: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court observed that there must be some harm to the mind or reputation that can be perceived from the materials on record for the person to be a ‘victim’ entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court was hearing an appeal that was filed invoking the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, “A possibility of injury to the mind or reputation is not enough to mean injury for the purpose of Section 2(wa) of the Code. There must be some harm to the mind or reputation which can be perceived from the materials on record in order for the person to be a ‘victim’ entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.”
Advocate R. Sudhish appeared for the Appellant and Advocate K. Nirmalan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the appellant, a prime witness, challenged the Sessions Court's acquittal of all accused. Respondents Nos.1 to 8 were tried for conspiracy to murder the appellant. The allegations involved respondent Nos.2 to 6, with respondent No.7's knowledge, plotting to kill the appellant. Police intercepted respondent Nos.1 and 2 on a motorcycle uncovering the conspiracy with a photograph of the appellant and Rs.1 lakh. After investigating, a trial ensued with 17 witnesses and various exhibits, but the trial court found the evidence insufficient, leading to the acquittal of all respondents.
The Court perused Section 44 IPC and noted that harm caused to the mind or reputation is sufficient to cause injury.
The Court said that the person who suffers any loss or injury on account of the act of the accused is a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code. However, according to the Court when the phraseology says that a person has suffered any “loss or injury” caused because of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged, the term injury takes the shade of the word loss.
Therefore, as per the Court, a person who sustained perceivable harm to his mind or reputation alone can be said to have sustained injury in the context of Section 2(wa) of the Code.
Accordingly, the Court said that the appellant cannot come within the purview of the definition of victim in Section 2(wa) of the Code.
Finally, the Court said that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.