Victim appeal rights extend to eligible private complainants, who may invoke the Code's appellate remedy against acquittal.

The amended victim-appeal scheme under the Code recognises a substantive right of appeal for a person who falls within the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa), including a complainant in a private complaint who has suffered loss or injury from the alleged offence. That status does not depend on whether the case began on a police report or by private complaint, so an eligible complainant may invoke the proviso to Section 372 against acquittal. The text also explains that Section 378(4) is not the only route where the complainant is also a victim; the victim appeal remains maintainable before the lowest competent forum in the hierarchy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complainant in a private complaint, who answers the definition of "victim", can invoke the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against acquittal of the accused; (ii) whether such a complainant, if also a victim, is confined to the remedy under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or may pursue the appeal provided by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether a complainant in a private complaint, who answers the definition of "victim", can invoke the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against acquittal of the accused.

Analysis: The amended scheme of the Code confers a substantive right of appeal on a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372, and the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) is broad enough to cover a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act or omission for which the accused is charged. The Court held that the character of the person as a victim does not depend on whether the proceedings were initiated on a police report or by private complaint. It further held that a complainant in a private complaint, including a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, may also be a victim where the statutory ingredients are satisfied.

Conclusion: Yes. A complainant in a private complaint who satisfies the definition of victim is entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 as a matter of right.

Issue (ii): whether such a complainant, if also a victim, is confined to the remedy under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or may pursue the appeal provided by the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The continued existence of Section 378(4) does not exclude the operation of the later victim-appeal provision. The Court held that the two provisions operate in different fields and that a complainant who is also a victim may technically have two remedies, but the appeal should be carried to the lowest competent forum in accordance with the hierarchy of courts. The later amendment was construed as conferring an additional substantive right and not as creating an exclusion of private complainants from the term "victim".

Conclusion: The complainant is not confined to Section 378(4) if he is also a victim; the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is maintainable, and the lower competent forum must be approached.

Final Conclusion: The amended victim-appeal provision applies to eligible complainants in private complaints, including those in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and where the complainant is also the victim, the statutory appeal lies as of right to the forum indicated by the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The term "victim" in Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes a complainant in a private complaint who has suffered loss or injury from the offence, and such a person can invoke the proviso to Section 372 despite the continued presence of Section 378(4).

---