Unknown vs Smt. Sampa Kabiraj

Unknown vs Smt. Sampa Kabiraj

Case Name	Unknown vs Smt. Sampa Kabiraj
Citation	LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-38
Case Number	C.R.R. NO.3048 OF 2016C.R.M.S.P.L. NO.3 OF 2016
Date of Judgment	14 March 2017
Court	High Court Judicature at Calcutta
Case Type	Rev. Petition
Petitioner	Mrinal Kanti Sil
Respondent	Smt Sampa Kabiraj
Bench	Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Referred Law	The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 372 of CrPCSection 378 of CrPCDelhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

Keywords: 

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 372 of CrPC, Section 378 of CrPC, Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955

INTRODUCTION: 

The case of Mrinal Kanti Sil v Sampa Kabiraj unfolds a compelling legal dispute that revolves around intricate family dynamics, property rights, and conflicting claims. The matter, which came before the honourable court, delves into the heart of familial relationships and the complexities that often arise when inheritance is involved. The plaintiff, Mrinal Kanti Sil, and the defendant, Sampa Kabiraj, find themselves entangled in a bitter legal battle over the rightful ownership of a substantial ancestral property, making this a highly contentious and emotionally charged case.

This case analysis aims to explore the key aspects of the legal arguments presented by both parties, the evidence presented in court, and the decision rendered by the judiciary. By examining the intricacies of this case, we can gain valuable insights into the Indian legal system’s approach to family disputes and property rights, shedding light on the broader implications for future similar litigations.

BACKGROUND OF CASE: 

Mrinal Kanti Sil was the petitioner and Smt. Sampa Kabiraj was the opposite party in this present case. In this case, the petitioner filed a petition for appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, despite the fact that the complainant already has access to an appellate remedy. The Calcutta High Court collaborated this case with Babulal Murmu v Singharay Murmu & ors. To resolve the dispute.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE:

The issues that were resolved in this present case were-

(a) Is the provision of Section 372 CrPC’s right of appeal available to victims in complaint cases?

(a) If so, how can you go about receiving this remedy?

A discussion of the development of the right to appeal against an order of acquittal in a criminal case under the Code of Criminal Procedure may be relevant to address the aforementioned problems. The development of the right to appeal an acquittal The 1861-enacted Code of Criminal Procedure clearly prohibits the right of appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 407 of the aforementioned Code, among other things, required that:

Section 407 states no Appeal in Cases of Acquittal says that there shall be no appeal from any judgement of acquittal passed in any Criminal Court.

For the sake of maintaining public order, peace, and safety, the right to appeal an acquittal was first added in 1872.

CONTENTION OF PARTIES:

Mr Tapas Kumar Ghosh was the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that when the complainant is also the “victim” of the crime, he is also allowed to use the appellate remedy provided by Section 378(4)/(5) CrPC against a conviction for a lesser offence. He further also said that It is possible for the High Court to exercise its authority under Section 407 CrPC to transfer the other appellate proceeding to itself and hear both appeals similarly in a situation where the complainant has sought his appellate remedy before the High Court. Mr. Siladitya Sanyal was appointed on behalf of the opposition party. He stated that a Public Prosecutor should have been directed by a District Magistrate before this case has gone to High Court. Now the remedy can be accessed.

JUDGMENT: 

After hearing both of the parties, honourable Justice Joymalya Bagchi gave the verdict, that stated-

1. According to the provision of Section 372 CrPC, a “victim” in a complaint case (who is not the complainant) is allowed to appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, despite the fact that the complainant already has access to an appellate remedy under Section 378(4)/(5) CrPC If the victim’s appeal must be lodged before the Court of Sessions in accordance with the provision to Section 372 CrPC, the venue will be chosen in accordance with the aforementioned provision itself, and no special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC is necessary.
2. When the complainant is also the “victim” of the crime, he is also allowed to use the appellate remedy provided by Section 378(4)/(5) CrPC against a conviction for a lesser offence or for receiving insufficient compensation. According to the provision of Section 372 CrPC, the complainant/victim is free to choose his course of action in these situations and appeal the order of acquittal by either filing an appeal as a complainant before the High Court under Section 378(4)/(5) CrPC or in his capacity as a “victim” before the appropriate forum. But if he uses one of the aforementioned medications, he will be prohibited from using the other remedy under Law.
3. It is possible for the High Court to exercise its authority under Section 407 CrPC to transfer the other appellate proceeding to itself and hear both appeals similarly in a situation where the complainant has sought his appellate remedy before the High Court in accordance with Section 378(4)/(5) CrPC and a “victim” (who is not the complainant) has filed an appeal against acquittal before the Court of Sessions.
4. According to the provision of Section 372 CrPC, a ‘victim’ has sixty days from the date of the contested order to file an appeal in a complaint case.

The reasoning given behind these judgments was further explained by Honourable Justice. Section 417 of CrPC says that the Central Government may also instruct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal from the order of acquittal to the High Court if such an order of acquittal is rendered in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, which repealed the 1898 Code, was the next significant development in procedural law. According to Section 378 CrPC of the 1973 Code, one has the following options for challenging an acquittal order: The Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), to the High Court in the event that such an order of acquittal is rendered in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency authorised to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code.

Following this, Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was further revised by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005, and the Court of Sessions was made the forum for appeal against orders of acquittal issued by a Magistrate in cognizable and non-bailable offences. The High Court must provide permission for an appeal to be filed before the said Court only in accordance with sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 378, which was also altered. The following is the text of Section 378 CrPC (as modified by the 2005 Amendment Act):-

1. The Public Prosecutor may be instructed by the District Magistrate to appeal a Magistrate’s order of acquittal in relation to a cognizable and non-bailable offence to the Court of Sessions.
2. Anytime the Public Prosecutor receives an original or appellate order of acquittal from a court other than a High Court [that is not an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal from the Court of Session in revision], the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal with the High Court.
3. The Central Government may, subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal if such an order of acquittal is rendered in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency authorised to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code.

Some cases were also cited by the Judge, as like-

In Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719, the Apex Court said that The fact that the victims of the crime and the suffering of the prisoner’s dependents are not taken into account by the law is a flaw in our legal system. In PSR Sadhanantham Vs. Arunachalam & Anr, the Constitution Bench acknowledged the relative of a “victim” of crime’s right to appeal an order of acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, the Apex Court recognised the informant’s right to notification and hearing in the event that the investigating agency filed a closure report or final report at the end of the inquiry. Additionally, the Apex Court recognised the right of a deceased person’s father to request the cancellation of bail that has been granted to an accused person in Puran Shekhar and Anr. Vs. Rambilas & Anr. In the case of S. Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthilvel, a full bench of the Madras High Court decided the followings-

1. A victim of the crime who has filed a private complaint against an accused has a legal right to appeal within the time frames outlined in Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. After obtaining permission to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a complainant (in a private complaint) who is not a victim has a remedy and may submit an appeal in the event that the accused is found not guilty.
3. Under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, the victim of a private complaint, even though he is not the complainant, has the right to appeal, but he must first request leave, as stated by the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh.
4. We concur with the Delhi High Court’s Full Bench that the term “victim” was correctly construed in the Ramphal case.
5. A complainant who is also a victim, as defined by Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is nevertheless entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to victims. The opinion of the Single Judge in Selvaraj, which held that the term “victim” mentioned in Section 372 excludes a complainant, is not legally correct, and in a particular circumstance, a complainant who is also a victim can avail themselves of the rights offered under Section 372 of the CrPC.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the case of Mrinal Kanti Sil v Sampa Kabiraj highlights the significance of family disputes concerning inheritance and property rights. The judiciary’s verdict in this matter carries considerable implications, not only for the litigants involved but also for the legal precedence it sets for similar cases in the future. The court’s meticulous examination of evidence and legal arguments underscores the necessity for a fair and transparent legal system to address such disputes. The verdict arrived at by the honourable court aims to strike a balance between individual claims and ancestral rights, attempting to ensure justice is served in light of existing laws and regulations.

As family dynamics and property disputes continue to be prevalent in society, this case analysis serves as a valuable reference for legal practitioners, scholars, and individuals seeking a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in resolving such sensitive matters through the legal framework. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of open dialogue and alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to foster amicable solutions in cases of family-related litigations.

This Case Analysis is prepared by Dibyojit Mukherjee a student of DSNLU 28, an intern under legal vidhiya