Victim Cannot Appeal for Higher Sentence, Only State: Raj HC

Victim’s Appeal Cannot Seek Enhancement of Sentence: Rajasthan High Court Admits It Only on Compensation

Published: 31 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has held that a victim cannot appeal for enhancement of the sentences awarded to convicted accused: no statutory provision gives the victim or the complainant that right, which is available only to the State (para 1). A victim may appeal against an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, so the appeal was maintainable on its alternative prayer for maximum compensation (para 1). It was admitted and connected with the accused’s own appeal (paras 2-5).

Key holdings

A victim may appeal against an order of acquittal, against a conviction for a lesser offence, or on the ground of inadequate compensation (para 1).

No statutory provision lets the victim or the complainant appeal for enhancement of sentence; only the State can, so the prayer for maximum sentences was not maintainable (para 1).

The prayer for maximum compensation was maintainable: the appeal was admitted, notice issued, the record called for, and it was connected with the accused’s appeal (paras 1-5).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant, described in the order as the victim, appealed against the trial court’s judgment convicting the accused-respondents. She prayed that they be awarded the maximum sentences for the offences of which they were convicted and, alternatively, that the maximum compensation be awarded (para 1). The cause title names the State of Rajasthan and eleven private respondents. The accused had separately appealed against the judgment of conviction in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1338/2026 (para 2). The two-page order does not state the offences, the trial court or the date of its judgment.

Court's Findings

Justice Farjand Ali noted that “under the new regime of procedural law” a victim has been given the right to appeal against an order of acquittal, on the ground of inadequate compensation, or where the accused is convicted of a lesser offence (para 1). Nowhere in the statutory provisions, the Court said, has a right been conferred on the victim or the complainant to appeal for enhancement of the sentence; that right is available only to the State authorities (para 1). The appeal was therefore not maintainable to the extent it sought maximum sentences (para 1). The alternative prayer, that the maximum compensation be awarded, falls within the victim’s right, and to that extent the appeal is maintainable (para 1). Since the accused’s appeal against the conviction was also before the Court, it found it apt to reconsider the material and admitted the appeal (para 2). The order cites no section number or decision and says nothing on the merits of the compensation claim (paras 1-5).

Legal Principle

A victim may appeal against an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation. No statutory provision gives the victim or the complainant a right to appeal for enhancement of the sentence; that right belongs only to the State. A victim’s appeal seeking higher sentences is maintainable only on its compensation prayer (para 1).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

A victim who wants a harsher sentence cannot seek it in a victim's appeal: this order holds that the right to seek enhancement of sentence is available only to the State (para 1). What a victim can challenge is an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation, and this appeal survived only because it also asked for maximum compensation (para 1). Where the sentence is the grievance, only the State can appeal. On the forum for a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, see Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court held that a victim's appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal lies to the Sessions Court.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.