The High Court dismissed an applicant's plea for leave to appeal against an accused's acquittal in a murder case, holding he was not a 'victim' under the CrPC and thus lacked standing. Consequently, the application for delay condonation was also dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed.
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.
(203) CRM No.26221 of 2011 and CRM No. A-402-MA of 2011
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.26221 of 2011 and CRM No. A-402-MA of 2011
Date of decision : 11.9.2012
Parmod Kumar
.....applicant
Versus
Har Parkash and Ors.
......respondents
Present : Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the applicant.
S.S. SARON, J.
Respondents No.1 to 5 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jhajjar for the offence punishable under Section 148 and Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” - for short), besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 which was attributed to Rajender alias Bablu (respondent No.2) and Baljit
Singh (respondent No.5). The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses
and placed several documents on record. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar
after considering the evidence and material on record held that he had no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case
(203) CRM No.26221 of 2011 and CRM No. A-402-MA of 2011
[2]
against the accused (respondents No.1 to 5) beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused (respondents No.1 to 5) were acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences under Section 148 and Section 302/149 IPC. Besides, Rajender alias Bablu (respondent No.2) and Baljit Singh (respondent No.5) were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act by extending the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved against the same, Parmod Kumar, who had lodged the FIR and is the brother-in-law of deceased Pardeep, has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents.
In terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” - for short) only a 'victim' can file an appeal. 'Victim' has been defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC to mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
The accused (respondents No.1 to 5) were charged for the offences under Section 148 and Section 302/149 IPC. The applicant Parmod Kumar himself has not suffered any loss or injury, besides, he is not a legal heir of the deceased Pardeep. Therefore, an application for grant of leave to appeal filed
by him as he is not a 'victim' would not be maintainable. Therefore,
(203) CRM No.26221 of 2011 and CRM No. A-402-MA of 2011
[3]
permission sought for grant of leave to appeal by a person who is not a 'victim' is liable to be declined.
Accordingly, the application seeking grant of leave to appeal is
declined.
The application seeking grant of leave to appeal has been filed along with CRM No.26221 of 2011 seeking condonation of 341 days' delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal.
Since the applicant/appellant is not a 'victim', the application seeking condonation of 341 days' delay in filing the application for grant of
leave to appeal is also dismissed.
(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
11.9.2012
(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE
amit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant who is not a 'victim' under the CrPC is entitled to file an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal.
Whether an application for condonation of delay in filing a leave to appeal is maintainable when the person filing it lacks standing as a 'victim'.
Parmod Kumar
Har Parkash and Ors.
S. S. Saron
S. P. Bangarh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
