- (1.) We have heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on the admission of this appeal. The Bench had, suo moto, raised the question of maintainability of the present appeal and in that connection referred to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which reads as under: Section 372 of Cr.P.C.--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. [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.] As may appear from the very provision, it was a right, which was newly created in favour of a victim of an offence, to prefer an appeal by adding the proviso, which was not existing prior to 31.12.2009, on which date the Amending Act No. 5 of 2009 came in force all over the territory of India, as per the notification issued in that behalf. But while vesting a right in favour of a victim of an offence or an informant, the Legislature was restricting that right in respect only of three classes of judgments. The right to appeal under Section 372 proviso Cr.P.C. could be available to a person having a locus to file an appeal only when it is a judgment of acquittal or if it is a judgment of conviction, but the conviction has been recorded against the accused for a lesser offence than the offence, under which he had been charged with.
(2.) To illustrate, if an accused has been charged under Section 302 of IPC and after trial, if he is convicted by the trial Court for offences, like, 304 I or II or Section 326 or 325, etc., then it could be a conviction for a lesser offence and in such a situation, the victim or informant could have a right to prefer an appeal. The third contingency, in which the Legislature was vesting a right to appeal in a victim of an offence was in respect of the quantum of compensation, which is to be provided by the Courts of law under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. This is a new provision and the jurisdiction of the Court to direct payment of compensation, which was not made appealable earlier. By judgments by various Courts, it was held to be an ancillary jurisdiction, complimentary to the main jurisdiction of a Court of trial to inflict appropriate sentence so as to sending a message to the society that the Legislature has attempted to reconcile the victim of offence to be situation of the commission of the offences. If there could be any other case, then besides the three categories of cases, which we have just enumerated, the right to appeal could not be exercised by anyone. Here, the present appeal requires the Court to examine the appropriateness of the sentence, which was inflicted upon respondent No. 2 after, he had been convicted for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, as the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was submitting that in case of injuries, the second part of the provision of Section 307 of IPC requires the Court to inflict the rigorous sentence of life imprisonment upon the convicted accused. Thus what appears is that the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 307 of IPC is not challenged by the present appellant as for an offence lesser than under which he had been charged with. The provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. could not be utilised for preferring an appeal to seek the enhancement in sentence. The law is trite that if there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. even the inherent powers of the Court could not be exercised to grant a relief. Section 377 Cr.P.C. gives a specific right to the State Government to file appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence. The informant does not have that right to prefer an appeal and, as such, we find that the appeal is not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi and the right to file an appeal. The same is dismissed as such. Let the Registrar General of the Court ensure that this order is brought to the notice of the Stamp Reporter, who henceforth, shall not accept any memos of appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., which seeks enhancement in sentence.;