Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a witness who was not shown to have suffered loss or injury from the acts for which the accused were charged could maintain an appeal against acquittal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The right of appeal is a creature of statute and can be exercised only by persons expressly entitled under the Code. The proviso to Section 372 confers a right on a victim, and Section 2(wa) defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act or omission for which the accused has been charged. The charges in the case related to abduction, murder, conspiracy and destruction of evidence, while the appellant's asserted grievance arose from a separate alleged extortion-linked episode in another case. The appellant was examined as a witness, but the Court found no charge or deposition showing that he suffered loss or injury from the offences tried in the present case. On that basis, he did not answer the statutory definition of victim and could not claim a right of appeal against acquittal. The Court also noted that, apart from the categories expressly provided in Section 378, no other person can maintain such an appeal.
Conclusion: The appeal by the witness was not maintainable under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and was liable to be dismissed.