Victim’s Appeal Under S.372 CrPC Against Acquittal Can Be Continued By Legal Heir : Supreme Court

 

Case Name & Judges

Table 1: Case Details

Case NameYearJudgesIssues (in brief)What Court Held
Khem Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) & Another etc.2025Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. ViswanathanWhether legal heirs of a victim can continue an appeal against acquittal when the victim/appellant dies during the appeal proceedings.Court held Yes – heirs of a victim are also “victims” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and can continue the appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, otherwise the victim’s right to appeal becomes meaningless.

Facts of the Case (The Story)

  • A man was killed in an incident. His son (who was also injured in the same incident) filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused.
  • During the pendency (while the appeal was still going on), the son died.
  • The son’s son (i.e., the grandson of the deceased victim) applied to continue the appeal as his legal heir.
  • The accused objected and said: “No, the appeal must end (‘abate’) because under Section 394(2) CrPC only appeals by convicted accused can be continued by heirs, not appeals by victims.”

So the Supreme Court had to decide:
👉 Can legal heirs of a victim continue an appeal after the victim (original appellant) dies?

Issues in the Case

  1. Does the right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC (for victims) end with the death of the victim-appellant?
  2. Can heirs of a victim be substituted to continue an already filed appeal against acquittal?
  3. What is the meaning of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC? Does it include heirs?
  4. Does Section 394(2) CrPC (about abatement of appeals) apply to victim’s appeals?

Law Points Discussed

Table 2: Law Sections and Their Meanings

SectionLawSimple Meaning
Section 372 CrPC (Proviso)Gives a victim the right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.Victims can independently appeal, not just the State.
Section 2(wa) CrPCDefines victim as a person who suffered loss/injury due to crime and also includes his/her legal heirs.Even heirs are considered victims in law.
Section 394(2) CrPCSays that appeals generally end (‘abate’) on death of appellant, except when the appellant is a convicted accused — then near relatives can continue.Accused’s heirs can continue appeals, but issue was whether this applies to victims’ heirs too.

Court’s Reasoning (Law Point Held)

  1. Right of victim to appeal is independent – It does not depend on the State. Parliament gave this special right in 2009 by adding the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
  2. Victim includes heirs – Section 2(wa) clearly says that legal heirs are also victims. If heirs can file a fresh appeal, they can also continue an already filed appeal.
  3. If heirs cannot continue, right becomes meaningless – Otherwise, if the victim dies mid-way, the whole purpose of giving appeal rights to victims is defeated.
  4. Parity with accused’s heirs – If even heirs of an accused (under Section 394) can continue an appeal, why should heirs of victims be denied the same right?
  5. Evidence appraisal – The Court noted that the grandson was not only a legal heir but also an injured victim himself. This made his claim stronger. However, the Court clarified that even if he was only a legal heir and not injured, he could still continue the appeal.

Decision of the Judgment

  • The Court allowed substitution of the deceased appellant (son of the original victim) with his own son (the grandson).
  • The Supreme Court rejected the accused’s objection that appeal must abate.
  • The case was sent back to the High Court for rehearing of the appeals, giving chance to both the heirs (victim side) and the State to argue again.

Core Points (Crux of the Case)

  1. Legal heirs of a victim can continue an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC if the victim dies during proceedings.
  2. Victim = includes heirs as per Section 2(wa). So, heirs have the same right as the victim.
  3. If heirs are not allowed substitution, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC becomes useless.
  4. Parity with Section 394(2) CrPC – If heirs of an accused can continue appeals, then heirs of a victim should also have this right.
  5. Even a non-injured heir can continue the appeal, though in this case the heir was coincidentally also an injured victim

How Court Viewed the Evidence

  • The Court observed that the applicant (grandson) was both:
    1. Legal heir of the original appellant (his father), and
    2. An injured victim in the same incident.
  • This strengthened his claim to continue the appeal.
  • However, the Court clarified: even if he had not been injured, being a legal heir was sufficient to continue the appeal.
  • Thus, the Court gave heavy weight to the fact that heirs are also included in definition of “victim.”