A victim of a criminal offence would not cease to fall under the definition of the term ‘victim’ and lose his right to prefer appeal before higher judicial forums merely because he also happened to be the complainant in a private complaint lodged against the accused before a lower court concerned, the Madras High Court Bench here has held.
A Full Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian, N. Kirubakaran and S. Vaidyanathan passed the ruling while answering a reference made by Justice S. Nagamuthu who differed with another single judge on the issue of right of a victim to prefer an appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure if he happened to have filed a private complaint.
The Full Bench clarified that a victim, who had prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, had a statutory right of appeal within the limits prescribed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
“A complainant (in a private complaint) who is not a victim also has a remedy and can file an appeal in the event of acquittal of the accused after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
“In a private complaint, even if the victim is not a complainant, he has a right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., but he has to seek leave as held by the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh’s case.
“A victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C does not cease to be a victim merely because he also happens to be a complainant and he can avail all the rights and privileges of a victim.
“The term ‘victim’ has been correctly interpreted by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ramphal’s case and we are in agreement with the same.
“The decision of the single judge in Selvaraj’s case, holding that the term ‘victim’ found in Section 372 excludes a complainant, is not legally correct. In a given case, a complainant, who is also a victim, can avail right granted under Section 372.”
