Tarun Singh vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.

$~78, 79 & 62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 4 May, 2026.
th
Uploaded on: 6 May, 2026
+ CRL.A. 448/2026& CRL.M.A. 13816/2026
TARUN SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. Dheeraj
Jagwani, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Mr. Lalit Luthra and Ms. Divya
Yadav, Advs. for State.
SI Mukul, P.S. Keshav Puram.
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet
Kumar, Ms. Shweta Singh & Mr. Shiv
Chopra, Advs.
79 WITH
+ CRL.A. 449/2026& CRL.M.A. 13827/2026
TARUN SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. Dheeraj
Jagwani, Advs.
versus
STATE AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Mr. Lalit Luthra and Ms. Divya
Yadav, Advs. for State.
SI Mukul, P.S. Keshav Puram.
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet
Kumar, Ms. Shweta Singh & Mr. Shiv
Chopra, Advs.
62 AND
+ CRL.A. 445/2026& CRL.M.A. 13657/2026
TARUN SINGH .....Appellant
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. Dheeraj
Jagwani, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND
ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Mr. Lalit Luthra and Ms. Divya
Yadav, Advs. for State.
SI Mukul, P.S. Keshav Puram.
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet
Kumar, Ms. Shweta Singh & Mr. Shiv
Chopra, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
th
2. These are three appeals challenging the impugned judgment dated 19
March, 2026 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’ ) passed by the ld. Principal
and District Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions
Case No. 203/2023 arising out of FIR No. 992/2022 registered at PS. Keshav
Puram.
3 . Vide the impugned judgment, the Respondents i.e., Vijay Arora, Rohit
Arora and Rohan Arora are convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 i.e., for the offence of attempt to murder. The sentence awarded
to them vide order on sentence dated 20th March, 2026 is three years along
with fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and
order on sentence is set out below:
Impugned Judgment
“78. Accordingly, accused Vijay Arora, Rohit Arora
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

and Rohan Arora are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC for
attempting to murder complainant Tarun Singh.”
Order on Sentence
“
9. Ld. counsel for complainant though admits that
quashing proceedings were initiated by the parties and
the complainant has received some amount in lieu of
compromise, but state that now he is ready to return the
said amount.
10. Convicts have been convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The
prosecution has successfully established beyond
reasonable doubt that the convict Rohan Arora
deliberately shot Tarun Singh with a licensed firearm ,
while convicts Vijay Arora and Rohit Arora exhorted
him to do so. Giving due consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the
circumstances of the convict, I sentence as under:-
For the offence punishable under Section 307
IPC, all three convicts Vijay Arora, Rohit Arora
and Rohan Arora are sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.
50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the
erring convict shall undergo simple
imprisonment for six months .”
4. The present appeals have been filed by the Victim-Mr. Tarun Singh
under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter, ‘BNSS’ ) seeking enhancement of punishment as also grant of
compensation. Illustratively, the prayer in CRL.A. 448/2026 is extracted
below for reference:
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the appeal of
the appellant may kindly be accepted and the Judgement
dated 19.03.2026 and order on sentence dated
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

20.03.2026 may kindly be enhanced as the current
sentence awarded is inadequate arid the appellant must
be granted compensation under the victim's
compensation.”
5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the sentence of the
Respondents deserves to be enhanced. Moreover, no compensation has been
granted to the Victim/ Appellant, therefore, the present appeals are
maintainable.
6. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP, on the other hand, submits that in view of the recent
decision of this Court in CRL.A. 598/2015 titled Muskan v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & Anr. the present appeals at the behest of the Victim would
not be maintainable.
7. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
prayer for grant of compensation would also not be maintainable as, under
Section 413 of the BNSS, a challenge can only be raised in respect of
inadequate compensation.
8. The Court has considered the matter. In Muskan (Supra), this Court
th
on 24 April, 2026 had held in respect of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘ CrPC ’), which is identical Section 413 of the
BNSS, that an appeal at the behest of the Victim in case of inadequate
sentence and for enhancement of the same would not be maintainable. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
“43. The present appeal has been preferred by the
injured/complainant invoking the proviso to Section 372
CrPC, seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon
the accused. Section 372 CrPC is reproduced
hereinbelow:
Section 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

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:
1
[ 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 .]
44. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision
makes it evident that the statutory right conferred upon
a victim is limited in scope and is circumscribed to three
specific contingencies, namely: (i) acquittal of the
accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, and (iii)
imposition of inadequate compensation.
45. Significantly, the provision does not
contemplate or provide for a right of appeal by the
victim on the ground of inadequacy of sentence.
46. The scheme of CrPC makes a clear distinction
in this regard. While the proviso to Section 372 confers
a limited right upon the victim, the power to seek
enhancement of sentence is specifically provided under
Section 377 CrPC, which can be invoked only by the
State. Section 377 CrPC is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Section 377. Appeal by the State
Government against sentence
(1) Save as otherwise provided in
sub-section (2), the State Government
may, in any case of conviction on a trial
held by any Court other than a High
Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to
1

present an appeal against the sentence
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

on the ground of its inadequacy-
(a) to the Court of Session, if the
sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is
passed by any other Court.
XXX
(3) When an appeal has been filed
against the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as
the case may be, the High Court shall not
enhance the sentence except after giving
to the accused a reasonable opportunity
of showing cause against such
enhancement and while showing cause,
the accused may plead for his acquittal
or for the reduction of the sentence .”
47. The statutory provisions are therefore, clear
and unambiguous, that the right to seek enhancement of
sentence is not vested in the victim, but exclusively in the
State.
48. The Supreme Court in Parvinder Kansal v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 496 , has
categorically held that the right of appeal under Section
372 CrPC is limited and does not extend to challenging
the adequacy of sentence. The relevant paragraphs from
the said judgement are reproduced hereinbelow:
8. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 deals with “Appeals”
and Section 372 makes it clear that no
appeal to lie unless otherwise provided by
the Code or any other law for the time
being in force. It is not in dispute that in
the instant case appellant has preferred
appeal only under Section 372 CrPC. The
proviso is inserted to Section 372 CrPC by
Act 5 of 2009. Section 372 and the proviso
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

which is subsequently inserted read as
under:
“ 372. No appeal to lie 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.”
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
lesser 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. 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

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. Further we
are of the view that the High Court while
referring to the judgment of this Court
in National Commission for
Women v. State (NCT of Delhi) [National
Commission for Women v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2010) 12 SCC 599 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 774] has rightly relied on the same
and dismissed the appeal, as not
maintainable.
49. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the
proviso to Section 372 CrPC, has unequivocally
observed that the victim’s right of appeal is confined to
the contingencies expressly provided under the statute,
and that there is no provision enabling the victim to seek
enhancement of sentence. It has further been clarified
that the remedy for inadequate sentence lies under
Section 377 CrPC, which is available only to the State.”
Thus, the appeals seeking enhancement of sentence at the behest of the victim
would not lie.
9. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Trial Court has not granted
compensation. However, there appears to be some reasoning in the order of
sentence of the Trial Court in paragraph no. 9 regarding the same. The
submission of the ld. Counsel for the Respondents also reveals that there was
some compromise, which had earlier taken place in respect this very FIR
being FIR No. 992/2022 registered at PS. Keshav Puram where an MoU was
entered into between the parties. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11

submits that a joint quashing petition was filed by the parties and the
Respondents had to pay Rs. 22,00,000/- to the Appellant. However, later the
said petition was itself withdrawn. It is also submitted that the Respondents
have already challenged this very impugned judgment before the ld. Single
Judge.
10. In view thereof the only issue which remains is regarding the aspect of
compensation. In the opinion of this Court, this matter would have to be
considered by the ld. Single Judge and not by the ld. Division Bench. In the
appeals there are no grounds set out as to why compensation ought to be have
been granted. Under these circumstances, ld. Counsel for the Appellant
submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty
to approach the ld. Single Judge for seeking grant of compensation.
11. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
the Appellant to only challenge the impugned order on sentence, only in
respect of compensation under Section 413 of the BNSS. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
12. Needless to add, this Court has not made any observations on the merits
of the matter.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 4, 2026
dj/ck
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 448/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:06.05.2026
12:38:11