Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1785 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. State

2021-09-21

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant complainant Mahendra Singh against the Judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/2014 whereby, the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148/120B, 449/120B and 302/149 read with Section 120B IPC and were sentenced to various counts of imprisonment extending upto life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The precise prayer of the appellant in this appeal is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 5.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pali, in Sessions Case No. 32/2014 may kindly be ordered to be modified to the extent of convicting the respondent accused for capital punishment in the interest of Justice." 3. The prayer, which has been made by the victim appellant in this appeal, is to direct that the respondents accused be awarded capital punishment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Victims have been given a right to prefer an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. which reads as below: "372. No appeal to like unless otherwise provided.-No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by 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." 4. The statutory provision gives the victims a right to challenge Judgments of the trial courts in criminal cases without depending upon the State to do so. The provision contemplates appeal against the acquittal of the accused; to question the conviction for a lesser offence or against imposition of inadequate compensation. The statutory provision gives the victims a right to challenge Judgments of the trial courts in criminal cases without depending upon the State to do so. The provision contemplates appeal against the acquittal of the accused; to question the conviction for a lesser offence or against imposition of inadequate compensation. The provision begins with the non-obstante clause that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Manifestly, the proviso gives a right to the victim to challenge the judgment of a criminal court only in three circumstances which have specifically been qualified by the proviso. Challenging a judgment of a criminal court on account of inadequacy of sentence awarded to the accused, is not an option available to the complainant/victim by the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. As per Section 377 Cr.P.C., the State Government has been given the exclusive right to file an appeal against inadequacy of sentence. 5. In view of the above discussion, manifestly, the victim does not have any right to question the judgment of a criminal court on the count of inadequacy of sentence which is the precise prayer made in this appeal. 6. Hence, the instant appeal preferred by the victim praying for a direction to convert the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the respondents accused by the trial court into capital punishment is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.