The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking enhancement of life imprisonment to the death penalty of the convict who kidnapped & murdered his son.
A two judge bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy while dismissing the appeal has said, “Section 377, CrPC 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, CrPC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under section 372, CrPC on the ground of inadequate sentence.”
“It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable,” said the Court.
“Further we are the view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this court in the case of National Commission for Women V. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable,” said the court while dismissing the appeal by the father of the deceased boy.
The Court pronounced its judgment against the order of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed the petition by a man/father of a boy who was abducted for ransom and murdered. The complainant father of the deceased boy had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order of the ASJ/Special Judge who sentenced life imprisonment to the convict. The appeal was dismissed by the high court as not maintainable.
The counsel for the appellant/father contended though the respondent no.2 had committed murder of an innocent child, the Sessions Court, instead to award the punishment of death penalty, has awarded only imprisonment for life. He contended that in view of the proviso to Section 372, CrPC which give right to prefer appeal to the victim, when the accused is convicted for lesser offence, there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal only for a lessor offence but not for lesser sentence. He submitted that when the son of the appellant was kidnapped and demand of ransom was made which was also paid to the second respondent but after kidnap his son was brutally murdered and it’s a fit case for death penalty.
The Supreme Court said, a reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim’s right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lessor offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer 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, whereas Section 377, CrPC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of Sentence.
Read the order here;
14248_2020_35_1503_23651_Judgement_28-Aug-2020-India Legal Bureau