Muskan vs State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 10 March, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 24 April, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 24 April, 2026
+ CRL.A. 598/2015
MUSKAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Garg & Nazim Ali, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, Mohd. Faisal and
Mr. Abhishek K. Tanwar, Advs. for
R2 with Respondent No.2-in-person.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
injured/complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
th
1973, (hereinafter ‘ CrPC ’) assailing the order on sentence dated 24
February, 2015 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South-East
District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 94/2014 arising out
of FIR No. 490/2011, Police Station Jamia Nagar, whereby the Respondent
No.- 2 /Accused, though convicted for the offence punishable under Section
307 Indian Peanl Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’ ), has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 1 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

2. The grievance of the Appellant/complainant in the present appeal is
limited to the quantum of sentence. It is the case of the
Appellant/complainant that the sentence awarded by the ld. Trial Court is
grossly inadequate, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, and not in
consonance with the settled principles governing sentencing under Section
307 IPC.
3. It is pertinent to note that the present appeal arises out of the same
Impugned Order of conviction and order on sentence which were the subject
matter of challenge in the connected appeal being CRL.A. 316/2015, titled
Asad Arif v. State (NCT OF DELHI), filed by the accused. While the
earlier appeal pertained to the correctness of conviction, the present appeal
concerns itself solely with the question of adequacy of sentence.
4. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the factual matrix of
the present appeal is being recorded in terms identical to the connected
matter being CRL.A. 316/2015 titled Asad Arif v. State (NCT OF DELHI),
inasmuch as the incident, evidence, and findings remain the same. The only
distinction between the two appeals lies in the scope of adjudication, while
one is against the conviction, the present appeal pertains to enhancement of
sentence.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of
th
19 September 2011, at about 12:02 a.m., information was received at
Police Station Jamia Nagar regarding admission of one Ms. Muskan in Holy
Family Hospital in an injured condition. The said information was recorded
vide DD No. 3A and entrusted to the Investigating Officer for necessary
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 2 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

action. The Investigating Officer, along with accompanying police officials,
proceeded to the hospital and collected the Medico-Legal Certificate of the
injured.
6. As per the statement of the injured PW- 4 Ms. Muskan, the incident is
th
stated to have occurred on the night of 18 September 2011 at about 10:45
p.m., when she had gone to the back room of her residence to take water
from the refrigerator. At that time, the Appellant/complainant, who was
known to her as a neighbor, was allegedly standing outside the window
opening. It is alleged that upon seeing her, the Appellant/complainant
threatened her, stating that since she had refused his proposal of marriage,
he would not spare her, and immediately thereafter fired a shot at her
through the window. The bullet struck the upper portion of her thigh,
resulting in profuse bleeding. Thereafter, the Appellant/complainant is stated
th
to have fled from the spot. The relevant portion of the complaint dated 19
September, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“बयानिकयािकम œ यहाँउपरो ƅ पतेपरअपनेप į रवार केसाथ
रहती š ँ औरपढ़ाईकररही š ँ जोकल 18, 19/9/2011 कीरात
व ƅ करीब 10.45 बजेम œ अपनेघरम Ő पीछेवालेकमरेम Ő
ि ů ज सेपानीलेनेगईथीतोम œने देखािक İ खड़की केबाहर
असदआ į रफ नामकालड़काखड़ाथाजोमोह ʟ े काही
रहनेवालाहैिजसकोम œ पहलेसेजानती š ँ उसनेमुझेदेखते
हीकहािकतूनेमुझसेशादीकरनेसेमनाकरकेअ Dž ा नहीं
िकयाअबम œ तुझेिज Ƚ ा œ कुछसमझ
नहींछोड़ूँगाजबतकम
पातीअसदआ į रफ नेमेरेऊपरगोलीचलादीऔरवहभाग
गया गोलीमेरीदािहनीजांघकेऊपरीिह ˣ े म Ő लगीऔरजोरसे
खूनबहनेकीवजहसेमेरीसलवारखूनसेलथपथहोगई | “
7. It is the prosecution’s case that upon sustaining the injury, the
complainant raised an alarm and was immediately attended to by her family
members, including her sister Safiara, who, along with others, shifted her to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 3 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

Holy Family Hospital for treatment.
8. The MLC bearing No. 24438 of the injured recorded a gunshot injury
on the right thigh, described as a lacerated wound measuring approximately
4.5X2X1 cm, and the injury was subsequently opined to be grievous in
nature. The said MLC bearing No. 24438 is reproduced here under:
“
“ On Examination : Stable, conscious & oriented.
Vitals stable.
L/E (Local Examination) (R) Thigh post lat:
elliptical ~ 4.5 x 2 x 1 cm (R) Thigh. Laceration.
Investigations : X-Ray (R) Thigh - AP & Lat.
Diagnosis and Conclusion

Condition at discharge: Stable

Final diagnosis: GUN SHOT INJURY (R) Thigh

Nature of Injuries: Grievous (Circled)

Remarks: H/o attacked on her with unknown
object. Pt (Patient) was admitted foreign Body
(ONE BULLET) removed from (R) thigh and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 4 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

discharged. ”
9. The injured was initially not in a condition to give a statement due to
the influence of heavy dosage of drugs as the doctor had suggested surgery.
Subsequently her statement was recorded upon being declared fit. Based on
the said statement, a rukka was prepared and the FIR No. 490/2011 under
Section 307 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar.
10. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 307
IPC was filed before the ld. jurisdictional Magistrate and the matter, being
triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Sessions
Court. Thereafter, charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the
th
Appellant/complainant on 18 January 2012, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
11. In order to establish its case, the prosecution’s examined thirteen
witnesses, including the injured witness (PW-4), medical experts, police
officials, and other formal witnesses.
12. The central pillar of the prosecution’s case was the testimony of PW-4
Ms. Muskan, who, in her examination-in-chief, reiterated the allegation that
the Appellant/complainant fired a gunshot at her from outside the window
after threatening her. She also identified the Appellant/complainant and
attributed a clear motive arising out of refusal of marriage. The relevant
portion of her statement and of the other relevant witnesses of the of the
prosecution witness are reproduced hereinbelow:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 5 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 6 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 7 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 8 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 9 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

13. The medical evidence, as led through PW-3 and PW-11, established
that the injury sustained by the complainant was a gunshot injury and that a
bullet was recovered during medical treatment. The nature of the injury was
opined to be grievous. The relevant medical opinion made by PW- 3 Dr.
Tirupati Ranjan Shukla and PW- 11 Dr. Vipul Sood are reproduced
hereinbelow:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 10 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

14. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of the blood-stained
clothes and the bullet, along with the forensic examination reports, to
corroborate the ocular version.
15. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
Appellant/complainant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he
denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The defence set up by
the Appellant/complainant was that there was no such incident of firing and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 11 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

that he had been falsely implicated due to personal disputes arising out of
matrimonial proposals involving the complainant and her family.
16. In defence, the Appellant/complainant examined four witnesses,
including himself, to support the plea that the relations between the parties
were cordial and that the alleged incident was fabricated. The defence also
sought to suggest that the marriage proposal was for the complainant’s sister
and not the complainant, and that the present case was a result of personal
animosity. The relevant portion of the statements of the defence witnesses
are reproduced hereinbelow:

Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 12 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT:
17. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had
successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the
injured witness was found to be credible and corroborated by medical
evidence.
18. The ld. Trial Court held that the testimony of PW-4 stood
corroborated by the medical evidence and by the testimony of PW-6. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 13 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

presence of the Appellant/complainant at the spot and his identity were held
to be duly established.
19. The defence taken by the Appellant/complainant was rejected by the
ld. Trial Court as improbable. The ld. Trial Court also held that the absence
of recovery of weapon of offence was not fatal to the prosecution case in
view of the consistent ocular and medical evidence.
20. On the aspect of intention, the ld. Trial Court held that the act of firing
a gunshot at the complainant from close range clearly demonstrated the
intention to cause death, thereby attracting the offence under Section 307
IPC.
21. Accordingly, the ld. Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the
Appellant/complainant under Section 307 IPC. The Appellant/complainant
was thereafter sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years along with
fine.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
22. The ld. counsel for the Appellant/complainant submits that the
Impugned Order on Sentence dated 24th February, 2015 is strikingly
inadequate. It is submitted that a lenient sentence of three years’ simple
imprisonment fails to reflect the gravity of an offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC, particularly when committed with a firearm.
23. It is further submitted that the present case involves a grave offence of
attempt to murder by use of a firearm, which cannot be treated as a routine
case of assault.
24. The complainant sustained a gunshot injury, which has been
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 14 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

medically opined to be grievous in nature. It is further submitted that a bullet
was embedded in her body, necessitating surgical intervention, and the
impact of the injury continues to affect her even till date.
25. The ld. counsel submits that the long-term physical and psychological
trauma suffered by the complainant is a relevant factor which ought to have
been duly considered by the ld. Trial Court while determining the sentence.
26. It is further contended that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which
confers a right of appeal upon the victim, ought to be interpreted in a
purposive manner so as to advance the cause of victim justice. It is
submitted that where the sentence imposed is grossly inadequate and fails to
reflect the gravity of the offence, the same would fall within the broader
ambit of ensuring complete justice to the victim.
27. The ld. counsel submits that the technical objection as to
maintainability ought not to impede the Court from exercising its appellate
jurisdiction to ensure that the sentence imposed is commensurate with the
gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances.
28. It is further submitted that the powers of the Appellate Court under
Section 386 CrPC are wide and plenary in nature, and once the matter is
before the Court, it is open to the Court to examine the correctness, legality
and propriety of the sentence imposed and to alter the same, including
enhancement thereof, in an appropriate case.
29. The ld. counsel has also addressed the aspect of delay and submits
that the delay in trial and disposal of the appeal cannot be treated as a
mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused.
30. It is submitted that such delay is attributable to systemic factors,
including multiple adjournments and procedural constraints, and cannot
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 15 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

enure to the benefit of the accused.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
31. Per contra, the ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent/Accused,
opposes the present appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. He submits
that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC confers a strictly circumscribed right of
appeal upon a victim, limited to three specific contingencies: (i) an order
acquitting the accused; (ii) a conviction for a lesser offence; or (iii) the
imposition of inadequate compensation.
32. It is further contended that the statutory framework does not provide
any right to a victim to seek enhancement of sentence, which is specifically
governed by Section 377 CrPC and is exercisable only at the instance of the
State.
33. The ld. counsel submits that the right of appeal being a creature of
statute, cannot be expanded beyond the express provisions of law. In the
absence of a statutory provision enabling a victim to seek enhancement of
sentence, the present appeal is not maintainable.
34. The ld. counsel further places reliance upon Parvinder Kansal v.
State (NCT OF DELHI) And. Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 496 to contend that the
scope of Section 372 CrPC does not extend to challenging adequacy of
sentence, and that such power lies exclusively with the State under Section
377 CrPC.
35. It is further submitted that the ld. Trial Court has exercised its
sentencing discretion judiciously, after considering both aggravating and
mitigating circumstances.
36. The ld. counsel submits that the offence under Section 307 IPC
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 16 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

provides for punishment which may extend to ten years or life
imprisonment, and does not prescribe any minimum mandatory sentence.
Therefore, the sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment cannot be said
to be illegal or per se inadequate.
37. The ld. counsel further submits that as per the nominal roll, the
accused has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence imposed
upon him.
38. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the order of Supreme Court in
Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3683, to
contend that where an accused has undergone a significant portion of the
sentence and does not seek to contest the conviction, the Court may consider
maintaining the sentence already undergone rather than enhancing it.
39. The ld. counsel further submits that the ld. Trial Court has already
directed payment of substantial compensation to the complainant, which
addresses the victim centric aspect of sentencing. It is contended that instead
of enhancing the custodial sentence, the ends of justice can be adequately
met by ensuring appropriate compensation to the victim.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
40. The Court has considered the matter.
41. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the ld.
counsel for the parties and has perused the record.
42. At the outset, before adverting to the merits of the prayer for
enhancement of sentence, it is necessary to examine the preliminary
objection raised by the Respondent as to the maintainability of the present
appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 17 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

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
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:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 18 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

“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
1
Prosecutor to present an appeal against the
sentence 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:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 19 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

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 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 20 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

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. 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.
50. The ld. counsel for the Appellant/complainant has sought to contend
that this Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 386 CrPC, may
enhance the sentence notwithstanding the objection as to maintainability.
51. Section 386 CrPC confers powers upon the Appellate Court while
dealing with a validly instituted appeal. However, such powers cannot be
invoked to bypass or override the express statutory limitations on the right to
appeal. Section 386 CrPC is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 21 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

“386. Powers of the Appellate Court.- After
perusing such record and hearing the appellant or
his pleader, if he appears, and the Public
Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal
under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he
appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers
that there is no sufficient ground for interfering,
dismiss the appeal, or may-
(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse
such order and direct that further inquiry be made,
or that the accused be re-tried or committed for
trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and
pass sentence on him according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction-
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried
by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to
such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of
the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same;
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence-
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried
by a Court competent to try the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or, the nature and extent, of
the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or
reverse such order;
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 22 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

(e) make any amendment or any consequential or
incidental order that may be just or proper:
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced
unless the accused has had an opportunity of
showing cause against such enhancement:
Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not
inflict greater punishment for the offence which in
its opinion the accused has committed, than might
have been inflicted for that offence by the Court
passing the order or sentence under appeal.”
52. The jurisdiction under Section 386 CrPC is procedural and
consequential in nature and it cannot be invoked as an independent source of
appellate right where none exists. To accept the submission of the
Appellant/complainant would amount to expanding the scope of Section 372
CrPC beyond its legislative intent, which is impermissible.
53. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the accused has been
convicted under Section 307 IPC. The appeal is neither directed against an
acquittal nor against a conviction for a lesser offence. No issue has been
raised regarding compensation, the only grievance concerns the alleged
inadequacy of the sentence imposed.
54. Such a challenge does not fall within the scope of the proviso to
Section 372 CrPC. The appropriate remedy, if any, would have been for the
State to prefer an appeal under Section 377 CrPC seeking enhancement of
sentence.
55. In the present matter no such appeal has been preferred by the State.
In these circumstances, the present appeal, at the instance of the complainant
seeking enhancement of sentence, is not maintainable.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 23 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03

56. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the present
appeal filed by the Appellant/complainant seeking enhancement of sentence
is not maintainable under Section 372 CrPC.
57. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
are disposed of.
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2026/ P PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 598/2015 Page 24 of 24
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:24.04.2026
19:48:03