Victim's appeal rights under CrPC include legal heirs, with a 60-day reasonable limitation period inferred by analogy.

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC was treated as conferring a victim's right of appeal on a deceased victim's legal heir, because "victim" under Section 2(wa) was held to include the heir entitled under inheritance law. The Court also held that, where no express limitation period is prescribed for a victim's appeal, a reasonable period may be inferred from analogous appellate provisions. Applying that approach, 60 days was treated as the reasonable limitation period, and a 23-day delay was condoned because the newly introduced appellate right could reasonably create uncertainty about the applicable time limit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was a "victim" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) What would be the reasonable period of limitation for a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372, and whether the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was a "victim" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The expression "victim" includes the legal heir of the person who suffered the loss or injury. Where the actual crime victim has died, the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 may be asserted by a person who is a legal heir under the applicable law of inheritance. On the facts, the deceased's father fell within that category.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to be a victim entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 372.

Issue (ii): What would be the reasonable period of limitation for a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372, and whether the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 created a victim's right of appeal but did not prescribe a limitation period. In such a situation, a reasonable period had to be inferred by reference to analogous appellate provisions. The Court treated the victim's appeal as closer to a private appeal than a State appeal and held that 60 days would be the reasonable period. Since the legislative position was uncertain and the appellant could reasonably have been confused about the applicable limitation, the delay was considered fit for condonation.

Conclusion: The reasonable limitation period was held to be 60 days, and the delay of 23 days was condoned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was permitted to proceed, with the delay excused on the footing that the victim's appellate right under the proviso to Section 372 was newly introduced and required a reasonable, not mechanical, limitation approach.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a victim's appeal is conferred by statute but no limitation period is prescribed, the court may infer a reasonable period by comparing analogous appellate provisions, and a legal heir of a deceased victim may maintain such an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa).

---