Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Appellant is the brother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Bohti. He has filed this Appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2022 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2019, whereby all the accused persons (respondent nos. 2 to 5) were acquitted of the charge of offence under Sections 304, 323, 452, 504 & 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that F.I.R., in respect of the incident, which resulted in death of Smt. Bohti, was filed by the appellant, therefore, he is competent to file Appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. gives right to file Appeal only to a ‘victim’. The expression ‘victim’ is defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., which is reproduced below:-

“S. 2(wa) “victim” means 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.”

From reading of Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., it is apparent that a complainant cannot be treated as victim, therefore, the Appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained by a complainant. A conjoint reading of Section 372 and Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. reveals that an Appeal would be maintainable only by a person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged or one who is guardian or legal heir of the person, who has suffered such loss or injury. The appellant has not suffered any loss or injury by reason of the offence complained of and there is nothing on record to show that he is the guardian or legal heir of the deceased. From perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that daughter of the deceased, namely, Khushboo was examined as P.W.-6.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased is survived by three children, however, all of them are minor.

Since Pradeep Kumar (appellant) does not fall within the definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not competent to maintain this Appeal.

We, accordingly, dismiss this Criminal Appeal. This order, however, will not preclude a victim from filing an Appeal against the impugned judgment.