Victim's Appeal Against a Magistrate's Acquittal Lies to the Sessions Court Under BNSS, Supreme Court Holds

The petitioner's son, who was suffering from depressive disorders, died by suicide while admitted to a hospital. The petitioner attributed the death to the negligence of a doctor and a nurse, and an FIR was registered for an offence under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, a bailable offence (para 9). The Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, acquitted the accused (para 9). The petitioner's appeal to the High Court was admitted by one Single Judge, but at the final hearing another Single Judge rejected it as not maintainable, leaving him free to appeal before the Sessions Court (paras 3, 5).

The Court rejected the argument, based on Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora, that a coordinate bench could not hold an appeal admitted by another Single Judge not maintainable. That proposition "does not emanate from the cited decision", which concerned a second Single Judge undoing a contempt finding already recorded (para 4). Holding the appeal not maintainable at the final hearing was "perfectly in order" (para 5). The Amicus Curiae's argument had initial force: under Section 419 of the BNSS, a State appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal goes to the Court of Session only for a cognizable and non-bailable offence, so for a bailable offence it lies to the High Court (paras 6, 8). But a victim's appeal is governed by the proviso to Section 413, under which it lies to the court that ordinarily hears appeals against convictions by the trial court, and Section 419 does not apply when the proviso applies (paras 10-11). Under Section 415(3), a person convicted by a Magistrate of the first or second class appeals to the Court of Session, so the victim's appeal against the Magistrate's acquittal lies there as well (paras 11-12).