| CASE NAME : | SATYAPAL SINGH VS STATE OF MP |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT : | 6 OCTOBER , 2015 |
| COURT : | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| CASE NO. : | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1315 OF 2015 |
| PETITIONER : | SATYAPAL SINGH |
| RESPONDENT : | STATE OF MP |
| BENCH : | T.S. THAKURV.GOPALA GOWDA |
FACTS OF THE CASE
. On July 19, 2010, Satya Pal Singh filed a written complaint with the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, alleging that his daughter, Ranjana, had been murdered by her husband and in-laws.
. An FIR was registered on July 27, 2010, and the case was investigated by the police.
. On June 13, 2013, the trial court acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them.
. Satya Pal Singh filed an appeal against the order of acquittal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that Satya Pal Singh did not have Locus Standi to file the appeal.
. Satya Pal Singh then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.
RELEVANT SECTIONS
- SECTION 372 OF CRPC – No Appeal to lie, unless otherwise provided .
ISSUES RAISED
. Whether the victim has the right to appeal against acquittals ?
. The definition of “victim” under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
. The role of the State in protecting the rights of victims .
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
. The contention of the petitioner in Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh was that he had Locus Standi to file an appeal against the order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
. The petitioner argued that he was a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that he had suffered harm or injury caused by the offence. The petitioner also argued that the High Court had erred in dismissing his appeal on the ground that he did not have Locus Standi.
. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner and held that he had Locus Standi to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. The Court held that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, includes “person who has suffered any harm or injury caused by the offence”.
. The Court held that the father of a deceased victim has suffered harm or injury caused by the offence, and therefore, he has Locus Standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
. The contention of the respondents in Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh was that the petitioner did not have Locus Standi to file an appeal against the order of acquittal.
. The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that he had not suffered harm or injury caused by the offence.
. The respondents also argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the judgement of the High Court.
. The Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the respondents and held that the petitioner had Locus Standi to file an appeal against the order of acquittal.
. The Court held that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, includes “person who has suffered any harm or injury caused by the offence”. The Court held that the father of a deceased victim has suffered harm or injury caused by the offence, and therefore, he has Locus Standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
JUDGEMENT
. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that the father of a deceased victim has Locus Standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
. The Court held that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, includes “person who has suffered any harm or injury caused by the offence”. The Court held that the father of a deceased victim has suffered harm or injury caused by the offence, and therefore, he has Locus Standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
. The Court also held that the right of victims to appeal against acquittals is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to appeal is an essential component of the right to a fair trial, and that it is necessary to ensure that the rights of victims are protected in the criminal justice system.
. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh has been welcomed by many legal experts. The judgement has been seen as a significant step towards ensuring that the rights of victims are protected in the criminal justice system.
. The judgement has also been criticised by some legal experts who argue that it gives too much power to victims and their families. These critics argue that the judgement could lead to frivolous appeals and could undermine the right of the accused to a fair trial.
. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh is a complex and controversial issue. The judgement has been welcomed by some legal experts and criticised by others. The judgement is likely to have a significant impact on the rights of victims in the criminal justice system.
Here are some of the key points of the judgement:
- The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, includes “person who has suffered any harm or injury caused by the offence”.
- The father of a deceased victim has suffered harm or injury caused by the offence, and therefore, he has Locus Standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
- The right of victims to appeal against acquittals is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The right to appeal is an essential component of the right to a fair trial, and that it is necessary to ensure that the rights of victims are protected in the criminal justice system.
CONCLUSION
. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court and the case is required to be remanded to the High Court to consider for grant of leave to file an appeal by the appellant as required under sub-Section (3) to SECTION 378 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed in the matter For the reasons stated supra, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgement and order of the High Court.
. The case is remanded to the High Court to hear the appellant with regard to grant of leave to file an appeal as the appellant is legal heir of the victim as defined under SECTION 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order as expeditiously as possible.
written by ADITYA SINGH intern under legal vidhiya
