Court Clarifies Victim's Right to Appeal Limited to Acquittal, Lesser Conviction, or Compensation; Only State Can Seek Sentence Enhancement
In a recent judgment dated August 18, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Jitendra Kumar, has clarified the scope of the right of appeal available to informants (victims) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("J.J. Act") and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). The court dismissed an appeal filed by an informant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to juveniles convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from an order passed by the Children's Court in Chapra, Saran district, sentencing two juvenile convicts to three and a half years' imprisonment, with provisions for periodic review of their progress and eventual transfer to Chapra Jail upon turning 21 years old. Dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence, the informant approached the Patna High Court through a criminal appeal seeking enhancement.
However, the Court held that while Section 101(5) of the J.J. Act permits appeal against orders of the Children's Court, such appeals must comply with the procedural provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), as the J.J. Act itself does not prescribe a distinct appellate procedure. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the right of a victim or informant to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is confined to three specific situations: (i) acquittal of the accused; (ii) conviction for a lesser offence; and (iii) imposition of inadequate compensation.
Inadequacy of sentence, the Court clarified, is not a ground on which an informant or victim can appeal. The power to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence lies exclusively with the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the informant's appeal for enhancement was held not maintainable. The Court granted liberty to the informant to file a criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the J.J. Act within two months, which is the appropriate remedy in such matters.
The judgment aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court in Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 496, and the Delhi High Court in Muskan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC Online Del 1896, both of which reiterate the limited scope of victim's right of appeal concerning sentence inadequacy.
This ruling reinforces the legislative intent to balance the rights of juvenile offenders with the interests of justice while delineating the procedural boundaries for victims and informants in juvenile justice cases.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Appeal against order of Children Court seeking enhancement of sentence by informant/victim is not maintainable - Right of victim to appeal is confined to acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation - Appeal for inadequacy of sentence lies only at instance of State - Informant may avail remedy of revision.
Statutory provision(s): Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 101(5), 102, 103(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 372 proviso, 377
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994745
