The deceased victim’s father qualifies as a “victim” entitled to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC.

Manoj Kumar, son of the appellant Kailash Rai, sustained injuries during an incident at Gokal Puri, Delhi, on 7 September 2009 and died at GTB Hospital on 8 September 2009.

The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 302/34 IPC and were acquitted by the Trial Court on 23 March 2012 due to material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, doubts regarding the investigation and recoveries, and the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony.

The appellant, father of the deceased, preferred the present appeal against acquittal. During the pendency of the appeal, he twice stated that he did not wish to pursue it.

The respondents nevertheless questioned its maintainability, contending that the complainant was the deceased’s brother and not the appellant.

1. Whether the appellant, being the father and legal heir of the deceased, qualified as a “victim” entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) CrPC.

2. Whether, notwithstanding the appellant’s stated unwillingness to pursue the appeal, the Trial Court’s acquittal warranted interference in light of the contradictory and improved prosecution evidence.

The Court applied the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which confers upon a victim a right to appeal against an order of acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction.

Section 2(wa) CrPC defines “victim” as a person suffering loss or injury by reason of the act or omission charged, and expressly includes the victim’s guardian or legal heir.

Relying on Khem Singh (D) Through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal, 2025 INSC 1024, the Court held that “loss” and “injury” must receive a broad interpretation, encompassing physical, mental, financial and legal injury, and that the definition of victim is inclusive in nature.

The prosecution was required to establish the respondents’ guilt under Sections 302/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt; material contradictions, substantial improvements, unreliable eyewitness testimony and investigative defects entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The Court held that the appellant was the deceased’s father and legal heir and had suffered loss by reason of his son’s death. He therefore fell within the statutory definition of “victim,” making the appeal maintainable despite the respondents’ objection that the complainant was the deceased’s brother.

On merits, however, PW-1 and PW-2 had initially categorically stated that they had not witnessed anyone assaulting the deceased and that the incident had not occurred in their presence.

Their subsequent versions, attributing the earlier testimony to threats, contained numerous contradictions and improvements. The Trial Court found that no contemporaneous complaint regarding the alleged threats had been made to the Court, police, prosecutor or any other authority, and that the prosecution had no other reliable eyewitness or developed circumstantial case.

The High Court also noted the Trial Court’s findings concerning doubtful recoveries, failure to associate public witnesses, inconsistencies in the preparation of the site plan and investigation documents, and medical evidence suggesting that one injury could have resulted from a vehicle accident or other blunt-force impact.

These circumstances created reasonable doubt, and the appellant’s repeated statement that he did not wish to pursue the appeal further reinforced the absence of grounds for interference.

Nevertheless, the Court found no basis to disturb the respondents’ acquittal, as the prosecution evidence was materially inconsistent and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the unreliable testimony, investigative deficiencies and the appellant’s express unwillingness to press the appeal, the appeal and all pending applications were dismissed.