State Is Not ‘Victim’ Defined Under Section 2(wa) Of CrPC, It Has To File Appeal U/s. 378: Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court has held that a State is not construed as ‘victim’ under the definition under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that it has to file an appeal under Section 378 of CrPC.
A criminal revision petition was filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice S. Rachaiah observed, “As per the proviso, the victim shall have right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Sessions Court. The definition of ‘victim’ stipulated under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., which states that, “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 and the expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal heir”. On careful reading of the provision, the State is not construed as ‘victim’ under the said definition.”
HCGP Rahul Rai K. appeared on behalf of the petitioner/State while Amicus Curiae Javeed S. appeared on behalf of the respondent/accused.
In this case, one couple had a female child aged about 4 years and as per the prosecution, the respondent used to consume alcohol every day and assault his wife without any reason. Even though the said fact was brought to the notice of the wife’s parents, they were advising her to adjust and live with the respondent. As per the complaint, the respondent assaulted the wife’s mother by using a machete and thereafter the wife started residing in her parents' house. Such being the fact, when she was grazing the cattle in the field, the respondent went to the said field and asked her to restore the matrimonial tie. When the wife refused to join the company of the respondent, the respondent tried to take away the ‘Mangalasutra’ by stating that, when she was not interested in staying with him, she need not have ‘Mangalasutra’ and took a wooden stick attached to tomato plantation and assaulted indiscriminately.
Being annoyed by the act of the respondent, she lodged a complaint based on which an FIR was registered against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 498A, and 506 of IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent being aggrieved by which, the State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court/Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court upheld the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the State approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “When there is separate provision stipulated to file an appeal against the acquittal to the State and the said provision is in existence even after Section 372 of Cr.P.C., was incorporated, the State cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is meant for victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. There is a distinction between the two provisions, the victim has to file appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal. Whereas the State has to file appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.”
The Court also noted that when there is a distinct provision distinctly conferring certain rights to the victim and the State independently, it is necessary to exercise their respective jurisdiction independently. It further said that in this case, the State preferred appeal by invoking the provision under Section 372 of CrPC, which is not permitted under law.
“… the appeal filed by the State under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., ought not to have been entertained by the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court considered and disposed of on merit, which amounts to, order without jurisdiction and the same is considered as non-est in law. Therefore, the present revision petition filed against the said order is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and set aside the order.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka v. Malleshnaika (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:26727)