Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Enhancement of Sentence

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 28, 2020, ruled on a crucial legal issue concerning the right of a victim to appeal for the enhancement of a convict’s sentence. The case, Parvinder Kansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., revolved around whether a victim can challenge a sentence as inadequate under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or if such appeals are limited to the State under Section 377 CrPC.

The petitioner, Parvinder Kansal, sought the death penalty for the convicted individual who was found guilty of kidnapping and murdering his son. However, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, prompting the petitioner to move to the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a criminal incident dating back to October 15, 2007, when the appellant’s son was kidnapped, and a ransom demand was made. Despite the payment of ransom, the victim was brutally murdered by the accused. The police registered an FIR under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to a trial.

On July 30, 2019, the trial court convicted the accused under all charges and sentenced him on August 17, 2019, as follows:

• Life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
• Life imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
• Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for destroying evidence under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs. 50,000.

The victim’s father appealed to the Delhi High Court, seeking an enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that a victim cannot seek sentence enhancement under Section 372 CrPC. This led the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Parvinder Kansal)

The petitioner argued that:

• The murder of his son was an extremely heinous crime deserving the death penalty.
• The trial court failed to impose the maximum punishment available under law.
• The proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives victims the right to appeal against a judgment that results in a lesser sentence.
• As the aggrieved party, he should have the right to seek a higher punishment.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of NCT of Delhi & Convicted Accused)

The respondents countered that:

• Section 372 CrPC permits victims to appeal only against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation.
• The power to seek enhancement of a sentence lies exclusively with the State under Section 377 CrPC.
• Allowing victims to seek sentence enhancement would lead to parallel appeals and disrupt the criminal justice system.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of CrPC and the legislative intent behind them. Key observations included:

• Section 372 CrPC does not explicitly provide victims with the right to appeal against an inadequate sentence.
• Section 377 CrPC clearly states that the power to appeal for an enhanced sentence is vested in the State Government.
• The legislature deliberately restricted the victim’s right to appeal in three specific circumstances: acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation.
• Enhancement of a sentence requires a broader review of judicial discretion, which should remain with the State.

Important Verbatim Observations by the Supreme Court

“The right to appeal is a statutory right. Unless a law expressly provides for an appeal, no party can claim it as a matter of right.”

“The legislature, while amending Section 372, limited the victim’s right of appeal to specific conditions, which do not include seeking enhancement of sentence.”

“The proper remedy for the appellant was to request the State to file an appeal under Section 377 CrPC rather than invoking Section 372.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC for enhancement of sentence was not maintainable.
• The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal was upheld.
• The appropriate route for seeking a harsher sentence was through the State’s appeal under Section 377 CrPC.
• The appeal was dismissed.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal law and victims’ rights:

• It clarifies that victims cannot appeal for sentence enhancement under Section 372 CrPC.
• It reinforces that the State has the exclusive right to seek a harsher punishment under Section 377 CrPC.
• It prevents victims from filing parallel appeals, ensuring procedural consistency.
• It highlights the importance of legislative clarity in defining appeal rights.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that sentence enhancement remains a function of the State while recognizing the victim’s right to appeal in specific circumstances.

Petitioner Name: Parvinder Kansal.
Respondent Name: State of NCT of Delhi & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Parvinder Kansal vs State of NCT of Delh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-08-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category