Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court

"While proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. gives a victim right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or against imposition of inadequate compensation but, to no appeal for enhancement of the sentence, a right which has exclusively been conferred upon the State Government under Section 377 Cr.P.C." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a victim does not have the statutory right to prefer an appeal seeking the enhancement of a sentence under Section 372 of the CrPC.

A Division Bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that while the High Court possesses suo motu powers to enhance a sentence under its revisional jurisdiction, a victim's appeal for the same is not maintainable.

The case originated from a brutal double murder in 2010 where two lawyers, Khem Chand and Girraj Prasad, were shot dead in their office. The trial court convicted Dalchand and Padam Singh to life imprisonment but acquitted two female co-accused. Three appeals were filed: the convicts challenged their conviction, while the victim-complainant filed two separate appeals—one against the acquittal of the co-accused and another seeking the enhancement of the life sentence to the death penalty.

The primary question before the court was whether a victim can maintain an appeal for enhancement of sentence under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court also examined whether a trial court can record a conviction in the alternative, such as under "Section 302 or 302/34 IPC," and the impact of delayed witness statements following a transfer of investigation to the CBI.

Victim's Right To Appeal Is A Creature Of Statute

The court analyzed the scope of Section 372 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the right to appeal is not an inherent right but a statutory one. The bench noted that the proviso to Section 372, which was introduced to empower victims, is restricted to three specific eventualities: an appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or the imposition of inadequate compensation.

Section 372 Proviso Does Not Cover Inadequate Sentence

The Court observed that there is a clear distinction between "inadequate compensation" and "inadequate sentence." While the victim can appeal if the compensation awarded is low, the power to challenge the inadequacy of the sentence itself is reserved solely for the State Government under Section 377 of the CrPC.

Court Relies On Supreme Court Precedent In Parvinder Kansal

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Parvinder Kansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi, the bench reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by a victim on the ground of an inadequate sentence. The judges held that since the remedy of appeal is a creature of the statute, it cannot be exercised unless specifically provided for by law.

Suo Motu Power To Enhance Sentence Reserved For Rarest Cases

While dismissing the victim’s appeal as non-maintainable, the High Court clarified that it could still exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC to enhance a sentence. However, the bench cautioned that such power should be exercised "strenuously" and only in cases where the punishment is so inadequate that it "shakes the conscience of the Court."

Double Murder Alone Not Sufficient For Death Penalty

In evaluating whether the life sentence should be enhanced to death, the court referred to the Bachan Singh "rarest of rare" doctrine. The bench noted that while a double murder is heinous, the number of victims is not the sole criterion for capital punishment. Considering that the convicts had already spent nearly 16 years in custody and showed reformative tendencies, the court declined to enhance the sentence.

"It is a well settled legal principle that though, double murder is heinous but, number of victim is not the only criteria for awarding capital punishment."

Conviction In The Alternative Is Impermissible

The High Court flagged a "disturbing feature" in the trial court's judgment, where the accused were convicted under "Section 302 or 302/34 or 302/120B IPC." The bench clarified that while the CrPC allows for alternative charges, a conviction cannot be recorded in the alternative. The court must be certain about the provision under which the guilt is established.

Court Corrects Technical Error In Trial Court Judgment

Exercising its powers under Section 386(e) of the CrPC, the High Court modified the conviction order. It held that since the act involved multiple shooters acting in furtherance of a common intention and conspiracy, the conviction should properly be under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B IPC simultaneously, rather than in the alternative.

Delay In Recording Statements Explained By CBI Transfer

Addressing the convicts' argument regarding the delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the court noted that the investigation was transferred from the State Agency to the CBI by a High Court order. The bench found that the CBI recorded the statements immediately after taking over the case files, thus the delay was explained and did not erode the credibility of the eye-witnesses.

The High Court dismissed the convicts' appeal against their conviction but modified the legal sections to remove the "alternative" conviction error. It also dismissed the victim's appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, citing a lack of medical corroboration for the alleged lathi blows. Finally, the appeal for enhancement of the sentence was dismissed as legally non-maintainable under Section 372 CrPC.

Date of Decision: 16 April 2026