Right To Prefer An Appeal Includes Right To Prosecute It: Supreme Court Allows Substitution Of Victim’s Legal Heir To Continue Appeal Against Acquittal

Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment clarified the scope of the term "victim" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and expanded the interpretation of the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court held that the right to prefer an appeal includes the right to prosecute the appeal, thereby allowing substitution of a victim's legal heir upon the death of the original appellant. The appeal challenged the acquittal of three accused persons by the Uttarakhand High Court. Finding that the High Court's judgment lacked proper analysis or reasoning, the Supreme Court set it aside and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The case arises from a criminal incident dated 09 December 1992 in which three individuals — Tara Chand (PW-1), his son Khem Singh (PW-3), and his brother Virendra Singh — were attacked by the accused using guns, sharp weapons, and bricks. Virendra Singh succumbed to injuries, while Tara Chand and Khem Singh were injured. The accused were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 302, 307, and 452.

On 04 August 2004, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced Ashok (A2), Pramod (A3), and Anil @ Neelu (A4) to life imprisonment, while acquitting the remaining accused. These three convicted individuals filed criminal appeals before the Uttarakhand High Court, which, in its judgment dated 12 September 2012, allowed the appeals and acquitted them.

Khem Singh, an injured victim and father of the deceased Virendra Singh, filed SLPs before the Supreme Court, which were converted into Criminal Appeals Nos. 1330–1332 of 2017. During the pendency of these appeals, Khem Singh passed away, following which his son Raj Kumar, also an injured victim in the same incident, filed applications seeking substitution.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Raj Kumar, the son and legal heir of the deceased appellant Khem Singh, had the locus standi to prosecute the appeal filed under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which permits victims to challenge acquittals, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation.

The Court began by examining the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, which includes a person who has suffered loss or injury as well as his or her legal heir or guardian. Emphasising the substantive and independent right conferred upon victims by the 2009 amendment to the CrPC, the Court held that the right to “prefer an appeal” under the proviso to Section 372 includes the right to continue or prosecute the appeal, even in the event of the death of the original victim-appellant.

Rejecting the respondents’ contention that Section 394(2) CrPC results in abatement of the appeal on the appellant’s death, the Court held that the said provision applies only to appeals filed by convicts or accused, not victims. It observed that the legislature's intent behind inserting the proviso to Section 372 and defining victim under Section 2(wa) was to ensure that the right to appeal is not defeated by technical procedural limitations.

The Court categorically stated: “The expression ‘right to prefer an appeal’ must necessarily include the right to prosecute an appeal. Mere filing of an appeal in the absence of prosecution is of no avail. Curtailing the legal right to prosecute an appeal on the death of the original appellant would render the proviso to Section 372 CrPC wholly redundant.”

Referring to its earlier ruling in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, the Court reinforced that the victim has an independent right to appeal and such right is not subject to the procedural conditions under Section 378(4) applicable to complainants. The Court further invoked the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime (1985) to emphasise that victims must be allowed full access to justice mechanisms, including the right to appeal against acquittals.

Significantly, the Court clarified that even if the substituted legal heir was not an injured victim himself, he would still have the right to prosecute the appeal, and in the present case, since Raj Kumar was also an injured victim, the ground for substitution was further strengthened.

Court’s Criticism of the High Court’s Acquittal Judgment:

Apart from the substitution issue, the Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the High Court acquitted the accused. It found the judgment of the High Court to be “cryptic”, devoid of analysis of evidence, and not in compliance with its duty as a first appellate court under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The Court observed: “While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The bench reiterated that appellate courts are expected to independently evaluate the evidence, including medical reports and witness statements, and record clear reasons before reversing a conviction. Citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ambarish (2021) 16 SCC 371 and Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 20 SCC 818, the Court underlined that short judgments lacking reasoning cannot be upheld, especially when the liberty of the accused and the rights of the victim are at stake.

Allowing the applications for substitution, condonation of delay, and setting aside of abatement, the Supreme Court held that Raj Kumar, being both the legal heir of Khem Singh and an injured victim himself, is entitled to continue the appeal. It allowed the Criminal Appeals Nos. 1330–1332 of 2017, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 12.09.2012, and remanded the matter to the Uttarakhand High Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The Court directed that the High Court should afford an opportunity to all parties — the appellant, the State, and the accused — and expeditiously decide the matter, keeping in view that the incident dates back to 1992.

Pending such decision, the accused persons shall remain on bail, subject to executing fresh bonds before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

This judgment marks a critical development in victims' rights jurisprudence in India. By allowing legal heirs to substitute and prosecute criminal appeals under Section 372 CrPC, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that access to justice and right to appeal do not perish with the death of a victim. The judgment further sends a strong message to High Courts to exercise their first appellate jurisdiction with judicial discipline, especially when reversing convictions and acquitting accused persons.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2025