Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Facts:

The appellant- Parvinder Kansal, whose minor son was kidnapped by the second respondent-accused, a demand for ransom was made which was paid by the appellant however, after being kidnapped his son was brutally murdered. The appellant was the complainant who filed a FIR ON 15-10-2007 for offence under section-364A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a charge-sheet was filed on 11-08-2008 against the second-respondent accused under sections 364A/302/201 of the IPC, the case was referred to the court of Special Judge (NDPS), Delhi. By a Judgement dated 30July 2019 the second-respondent accused was convicted under the above-mentioned offences and by an order dated 17 August 2019 he was sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh u/s 302 IPC, Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. I lakh u/s 364A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with Rs. 50,000 fine u/s 201 IPC; all sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against this order under section 372 of CrPC submitting that a sentence of life imprisonment is inadequate and should be enhanced to a sentence of death penalty, the High Court vide judgement dated 27 November 2019, dismissed this appeal. This impugned judgement of the High Court is appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner can seek enhancement of sentence under section 372 of CrPC.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 364A of Indian Penal Code.
• Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Appellant’s Contention:

The appellant contended that though the accused had committed murder of an innocent child; the Sessions court sentenced him to Life Imprisonment instead of sentencing him to Death Penalty. They also Contended that section-372 CrPC, gives victim the right to appeal when accused is convicted for a lesser offence, and there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal to a lesser offence but should include a lesser sentence. They submitted that the kidnapping and brutal murder of his son makes this case fit for enhancing the sentence from Life Imprisonment to Death Penalty. They also contended that the High Court did not consider the provisions under section-372 CrPC with regard to the referred judgement and dismissed the appeal, which is contrary to the meaning of section 372 CrPC.

Respondent’s Contention:

The counsel for the State of NCT Delhi stated the clear reading of sections 372  and 377 of CrPC makes it clear that appeal u/s 372 by the victim is maintainable if accused is acquitted or convicted for a lesser offence or an inadequate compensation is imposed only, whereas u/s 377 only the State Government is empowered to prefer appeal to the High Court against inadequate sentence by Sessions Court. It was so submitted that for enhancement of sentence victim cannot appeal under section 372 of CrPC. 

Observations of the Court:

The appeal was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. The court observed that no appeal shall lie against an order of conviction of unless otherwise provided by another Code or Law for that time being in force. The court also held that right to appeal preferred by victim under section 372 CrPC is restricted to if the accused is acquitted or if the conviction is of a lesser sentence or if compensation imposed is inadequate, the same cannot be maintained on the ground of inadequate sentence. The court also stated that the Delhi High Court had rightly relied on the judgement of the apex court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Anr (2010) and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

Judgement: 

The court found no merit in this appeal to interfere with the decision of Delhi High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

The post Victim cannot seek appeal under sec-372 CrPC on ground of inadequate sentence appeared first on LexForti .

Parvinder Kansal Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

FACTS

1. The case is a criminal appeal filed by the appellant on the hon’ble SC seeking for enhancement of sentence under section 372 of Cr.PC, imposed by the special judge of North District, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.
2. By the judgement dated on the 30th of July 2019 the second respondent was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 364A, 302 and 201 of IPC.
3. The convict by the order of August has sentenced with
4. imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
5. imprisonment for life u/s 364A IPC along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh. 
6. Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/.
7. The convict was also given the benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.PC.
8. The complainant, (father of the deceased boy), filed appeal challenging the order of sentence dated 17th August 2019 passed by ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North   District, Rohini Courts, Delhi seeking enhancement of sentence to the death penalty as the appellant believed that the sentence was inadequate and needs to be enhanced to the death penalty.
9. Vide impugned judgment dated 27th November 2019 the High Court of Delhi has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

RULE OF LAW

Section 302 of IPC – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine

Section 364A of IPC – Kidnapping for ransom, etc. punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.]

Section 201 of IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender punishment with

Section 428 of Cr.Pc – Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment.

Section 372 of Cr.Pc – No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or any other law for the time being in force.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Hon’ble court held that the Chapter  XXIX   of the   Code of   Criminal   Procedure, 1973 deals with ‘Appeals’ and Section 372 makes it clear that no appeal lies unless otherwise provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force.
2. The court after a reading of the provision makes it clear that so far as the victim’s right of appeal is concerned, it is restricted to three eventualities, namely,
3. the acquittal of the accused.
4. conviction of the accused of a lesser offence.
5. for imposing inadequate compensation.

While the victim is given the opportunity to prefer an appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time, there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate.

• The court also stated that Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence.
• The court also referred to the judgement of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr.[1] has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable. 

Thereby the current appeal for enhancement of sentence, the victim cannot maintain appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC.

SC – “Appeal filed by the victim seeking for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable”

[1](2010) 12 SCC 599

The post Can an appeal be filed by the victim for the enhancement of a sentence? appeared first on LexForti .