Supreme Court expands crime victims' right to appeal

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has broadened the rights of crime victims and their families, granting them the ability to challenge acquittals, lenient convictions, or inadequate compensation awards in criminal cases.

The decision marks a major precedent in Indian criminal law, putting the rights of victims on an equal footing with those of the accused in appellate proceedings.

The bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan, held that Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) entitles victims of crime to appeal directly, a right that was previously limited to the state or the original complainant.

Importantly, the court ruled that this entitlement extends to legal heirs, who can continue pursuing appeals if a victim dies during the course of proceedings, The Times of Indiareported.

“Just as a convict has an unfettered right of appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, a victim too must be empowered with the same right, irrespective of the nature of the crime,” the bench observed. The judges emphasised that any restrictive interpretation of Section 372 would run contrary to Parliament’s intent when it inserted the provision to strengthen victims’ access to justice.

Supreme Court’s stray dog stand finally sparks satisfaction

Until now, the practice largely required appeals to be filed either by the state through its public prosecutor or, in limited circumstances, by complainants with the court’s permission.

By lifting these hurdles, the court clarified that victims should not be constrained by procedural requirements imposed on the state or complainant, such as seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4).

The ruling carries wide-ranging implications for the criminal justice system. It ensures that victims and their families no longer need to rely solely on the state to challenge what they perceive as unjust verdicts. It also provides continuity in cases where a victim dies mid-appeal, by empowering heirs to pursue the matter.

Legal experts say the judgment represents a shift towards a more victim-centric approach in criminal law, correcting an imbalance that has long favoured the accused in appellate proceedings. By affirming that victims and their heirs enjoy an equal right of appeal, the court has reinforced the principle that justice must not be denied due to procedural limitations.