Ram Kaur v. Jagbir Singh (2010) 3 RCR (Cri) 391
ram-kaur-v-jagbir-singh-2010-3-rcr-cri-391
Quick Summary
Ram Kaur v. Jagbir Singh explains two points. First, who counts as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. Second, if a victim can appeal an acquittal under the Section 372 proviso without prior leave. The High Court said: the appellant here is not a victim because she did not suffer loss or injury from the offence, and she was not the legal heir or guardian. Also, a victim’s appeal must follow the Section 378 procedure, so leave of the High Court is required.
Issues
- Does the appellant qualify as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC for the purpose of filing an appeal?
- Does an appeal under the Section 372 proviso need prior leave of the High Court, like Section 378?
Rules
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: “Victim” means a person who suffered loss or injury due to the offender’s act or omission.
- Section 372 proviso: Victim has a right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.
- Procedure aligned with Section 378: Prior leave of the High Court is required for such appeals.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant
- Claims status as “victim” to challenge acquittal under Section 372 proviso.
- Seeks reversal without insisting on prior leave.
Respondents/State
- Appellant is not a victim: no personal loss/injury and not legal heir/guardian.
- Even a victim must obtain leave like Section 378 before the appeal can proceed.
Judgment
The High Court held that the appellant is not a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. She is a near relation of the deceased but did not suffer loss or injury due to the offence, and she is not the legal heir or guardian. The Court also ruled that a victim’s appeal under the Section 372 proviso must follow Section 378 procedure, i.e., prior leave is necessary. The appeal was, therefore, not maintainable, and the acquittal was upheld.
Ratio
- “Victim” requires real loss or injury from the offence; mere relationship is not enough.
- Appeals by victims under Section 372 proviso must mirror Section 378—seek leave of the High Court.
- Acquittal stands when the record does not support a second view.
Why It Matters
This case draws a clear line on locus standi for victim appeals. It protects the meaning of “victim” and ensures a uniform leave filter for acquittal appeals.
Key Takeaways
- Victim = person with loss/injury due to offence.
- Near relation ≠ victim, unless also a legal heir/guardian or personally injured.
- Appeal under Section 372 proviso requires leave like Section 378.
- Acquittal remains if evidence does not allow a different reasonable view.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: V-I-C-T-I-M — Verified Injury Counts; Then Invoke (Section) 372 with Mandatory leave.
- Check Status: Do you fit Section 2(wa)?
- Choose Route: Use Section 372 proviso for acquittal.
- Seek Leave: Apply for High Court leave as per Section 378.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant is a “victim” and whether leave is needed for appeal under Section 372 proviso. | Section 2(wa) defines “victim”; Section 372 proviso gives right; procedure aligned with Section 378 (leave). | Appellant is a near relative, not shown to have personal loss/injury; no leave sought. | Not a victim; appeal not maintainable; acquittal upheld. |
Glossary
- Victim (2(wa))
- A person who suffered loss or injury from the offence; includes legal heirs in some situations.
- Leave
- Permission of the High Court needed to file certain criminal appeals.
- Acquittal
- Court’s finding that the accused is not guilty of the charge.
Student FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now