High Court held that mere mental injury or harm to reputation without physical harm does not constitute a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC. Consequently, the appeal by the de facto complainant challenging the acquittal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The criminal appeal challenging the acquittal judgment is dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRA(V) NO. 895 OF 2018
CRIME NO.917/2014 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.3.2018 IN SC NO.669 OF 2015 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
MUSTHAFA V.M
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABU.V.M.,
RESIDING AT MAARIYA, POST MELUR,
CHENGOTTUKAVU, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS.
R.SUDHISH
M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 & STATE:
1 PRAJEESHS/O.UNNIRAJAN, KIZHAKKELATH VEEDU,
KINALOOR POST, BALUSSERY,
KOZHIKODE-673612.
2UNNIRAJAN
KRISHNANKUTTI NAIR,
KIZHAKKELATH VEEDU,
KINALOOR POST, BALUSSERY,
KOZHIKODE-673612.
3RADHAMANI
D/O.NARAYANAN,
KANNOOTTIPPARA VEEDU,
CHAMAL POST, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE-673615.
4NARAYANAN
S/O.KANDAN, KANNOOTTIPPARA VEEDU,
CHAMAL POST, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE-673615.
5HARIDASAN
S/O.KOMAPPAN NAIR,
POOTHERIKKULANGARA HOUSE,
CHAMAL, KATTIPPARA,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673615
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
2
6ABOOBACKER
S/O.ABDU, NADUVILAKKANDI VEEDU,
MOODADI POST, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE-673307
7SHAMSUDHIN
S/O.ABOOBACKER, NADUVILAKKANDY VEEDU,
MOODADI POST, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE-673307.
8SREEKANTH
S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
VETTAKKARANKANDI,
SREENILAYAM, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE-673613
9STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
K.NIRMALAN
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
A.RAJASIMHAN
SUMIN.S(K/187/2012)
ADV.SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRL.A BY DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
3
‘CR’
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Crl. Appeal (V) No.895 of 2018
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed invoking the proviso to Section
372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
files of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. After trial, the Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Kozhikode, found all the accused not guilty and acquitted. The said judgment of acquittal is assailed in this appeal.
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
4
to 6, with the knowledge and connivance of respondent No.7, hatched a conspiracy to cause the death of the appellant, the former husband of one Jeseera. Rs.25,00,000/- was agreed to as the reward. Respondent No.2 received Rs.19.5 lakhs from respondent Nos.6 and 7 through respondent No.3. Respondent No.8 received Rs.6 lakhs out of the said amount. While respondent Nos.1 and 2 were travelling on a motorcycle, they were intercepted by the Police at about 12.10 a.m. on 15.06.2014 and the conspiracy was unearthed. Those respondents were in possession of a photograph of the appellant and Rs.1 lakh. Following the investigation, a final report was filed. A trial followed.
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
5
appeal. He is the victim of the offence, and on account of the alleged offences, he sustained injury. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that any person who sustained any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused were charged is a victim. Section 44 of the IPC explains that the word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the conspiracy hatched between respondent Nos.1 to 8 for causing the death of the appellant, harm had occurred to his mind and reputation and in that view of the matter, the appellant is a victim coming within the ambit of Section 2(wa) of the Code.
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
6
the alleged conspiracy flew, and therefore there is no basis for the appellant claiming him to be a victim of the offence. Therefore, he has no right of appeal.
It may be noted that a right of appeal to a victim has been provided by the amending Act 5 of 2009, with effect from 31.12.2009. When such a right is newly created as per the proviso to Section 372 of the Code and the definition of the victim has been added, essentially for that purpose, it needs a restricted interpretation. A possibility of injury to the mind or
CRA(V) NO.895 OF 2018
7
reputation is not enough to mean injury for the purpose of Section 2(wa) of the Code. There must be some harm to the mind or reputation which can be perceived from the materials on record in order for the person to be a ‘victim’ entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. In that view of the matter, the appellant herein cannot come within the purview of the definition of victim in Section 2(wa) of the Code. Hence, the appellant has no right to prefer an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal in S.C. No.669/2015. The appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
SMF
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant who faces conspiracy to cause death but no physical injury qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of CrPC for filing an appeal.
Whether mental injury or harm to reputation alone satisfies the definition of 'injury' required to claim victim status for an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
Whether a criminal appeal challenging an acquittal is maintainable by a person who does not qualify as a victim of the alleged offence.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
MUSTHAFA V.M
PRAJEESH
UNNIRAJAN
RADHAMANI
NARAYANAN
HARIDASAN
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court