Victims can appeal acquittals under CrPC s372

The criminal justice system has long been centered around the State and the accused, with the victim often relegated to the sidelines, treated merely as a witness to the crime. However, a silent yet powerful shift began with the amendment to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 2009, which recognized the victim’s right to appeal against acquittals, inadequate punishment, or improper compensation. This change is more than just a procedural amendment—it is a signal of a larger transformation in how justice is to be delivered in India.

Traditionally, if an accused was acquitted, it was the State—through the Public Prosecutor— that had the right to challenge such a judgment. The victim, in most cases, could only watch from the sidelines, feeling powerless even when injustice stared them in the face.

The 2009 amendment to the CrPC altered this power dynamic by adding a proviso to Section 372, which expressly grants the victim the right to prefer an appeal in certain situations.

The proviso states:

"the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court."

This is a critical recognition that justice cannot be one-sided. The system must listen not only to the accused but also to the person who has suffered directly because of the crime. For the first time, the victim is not just a passive observer but an active participant in seeking justice.

However, the application of this right has not been without legal confusion. A major debate arose: Does the victim need to get the leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) to file such an appeal, or can they appeal directly? This issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015). The Court held that even though Section 372 allows a victim to appeal an acquittal, the procedural requirement of seeking leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) still applies. In other words, the right exists, but it must be exercised following the proper legal channel.

This interpretation balances the victim’s rights with the need to prevent frivolous or repeated litigation. It ensures that while victims have a voice, there are still judicial checks in place to maintain fairness and order in the appellate process.

The term “victim” has also been clearly defined in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC as "a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged." This includes not only the direct sufferer but, in the case of death, the legal heirs of the deceased—usually the family members—who can step forward to demand justice.

Importantly, this provision has had far-reaching effects, especially in cases involving sexual offences, dowry deaths, and custodial crimes, where the victims or their families often felt let down by weak investigations or lenient judgments. Now, they have a legal right to challenge such outcomes.

Yet, while the law has moved forward, the implementation still faces challenges. Many victims remain unaware of their appellate rights. Legal aid systems are often not strong enough to support them through complex procedures. Courts must ensure that these rights are not just written on paper but are made accessible in real terms.

In conclusion, Section 372’s proviso marks a meaningful shift toward a more inclusive and balanced justice system, one that respects the voice of the victim. It recognizes that justice is not just about punishing the guilty but also about healing the wounded. The judiciary, while guarding the rights of the accused, must also ensure that victims are no longer mere spectators in the courtroom but are heard, respected, and empowered to seek justice in its fullest sense.