Court affirms constitutional validity of proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS, 2023, recognizing superior and unconditional appellate rights of victims vis-à-vis the State.
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), as well as Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The judgment emphatically affirms the right of victims to file appeals against orders of acquittal or convictions for lesser offenses without the requirement of seeking special leave from the Court, underscoring the superior status granted to victims under Indian criminal jurisprudence.
The case arose when Shivdhar Upadhyay, the petitioner, challenged the maintainability of an appeal filed by a victim (respondent no.3) against his acquittal by the Magistrate in a criminal case under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim had preferred the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which allows victims to appeal without leave even in cases where the State or complainant would be required to seek leave under Section 378 CrPC. The petitioner contended that this proviso was unconstitutional and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. He further argued that the proviso should apply only to privately instituted complaints and not to police complaints.
Rejecting these contentions, the Delhi High Court observed that the legislative intent behind the proviso is to recognize the victim’s unconditional and superior right to seek justice, particularly when the State or complainant may decide not to file an appeal. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent authoritative judgments, notably Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025) and Khem Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), which clearly distinguish the victim’s right from that of the State or complainant. The Court noted that the right of appeal is a fundamental right for an accused convicted of a crime and by parity of reasoning, victims must enjoy an equally unconditional right to appeal against acquittals or lesser convictions.
The Court also held that the proviso’s applicability is not limited to private complaints but extends equally to police complaints. Attempting to limit the proviso to private complaints would be contrary to the legislative intent and disrupt the statutory scheme designed to empower victims. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Sessions Court correctly dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
In its detailed reasoning, the Court emphasized the principles enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, highlighting the necessity of providing victims with access to justice mechanisms that are expeditious, fair, and accessible. The Court called for a liberal and beneficial interpretation of the proviso, facilitating victims’ participation in the justice delivery system without unnecessary procedural hurdles.
The petition was dismissed, with the Court observing that there was no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso. The judgment reinforces the evolving jurisprudence that balances the rights of the accused and victims, ensuring that victims are not left remediless due to procedural complexities.
This ruling is significant for criminal jurisprudence in India as it strengthens the position of victims in the criminal justice system, granting them a robust mechanism to challenge acquittals and inadequate sentences, thereby promoting justice and accountability.
Bottom Line:
The proviso to Section 372 of CrPC and Section 413 of BNSS, 2023, granting victims the right to file appeals against acquittals, is constitutionally valid. The distinction between the rights of victims and the rights of the State or complainants in filing appeals is justified and does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Shivdhar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971820
