Legal Heirs of a Deceased Victim Can Continue Her Appeal Against Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court

The complainant alleged that the accused had her family's land mutated in their own names after her grandfather's death in 1974 by falsely showing that he died without issue (para 2). Police charge-sheeted them for cheating and forgery, but the Magistrate acquitted them on 20.12.2012 (para 3). She appealed to the Sessions Court and died on 25.09.2013 while the appeal was pending. On 21.10.2013 the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal as abated without bringing her heirs on record (paras 1, 3). Her husband and children challenged that order. The accused argued that only a revision lay, and that Section 394 CrPC was never amended to let a victim's heirs continue an appeal (paras 6-7).

Section 2(wa) CrPC gives 'victim' an expansive meaning that includes a guardian or legal heir, and the proviso to Section 372 gives the victim an unambiguous right of appeal against acquittal (paras 12-14). Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagali and Mahabir, the Court treated the proviso as a substantive right to be read liberally in the victim's favour (paras 15-16). It noted Balasaheb Thackerey and Jimmy Jahangir Madan, which allowed a complainant's relative or heir to continue a prosecution (paras 17-18). In Khem Singh the Supreme Court held that Section 394(2) cannot simply be applied to a victim's appeal, that "prefer an appeal" includes pursuing one, and that a victim's heir may continue it (para 19). On that basis the petitioners, as heirs of the deceased victim, fall within the definition and may continue the prosecution by applying for leave to continue her appeal (para 20). In parting remarks the Court observed that the 2008 amendment gave victims a right of appeal but left the proviso to Section 394 unchanged, an omission it described as discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 (para 22).