Criminal Procedure Code

Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka

(2019) 2 SCC 752

Facts

Mallikarjun Kodagali was injured in a criminal incident and was therefore a “victim” within the meaning introduced into the CrPC.
The offence occurred before 31 December 2009.
The trial court acquitted the accused after the 2009 amendment inserting the proviso to Section 372 had come into force.
Kodagali sought to appeal against the acquittal in his capacity as the victim.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that:
the occurrence predated the amendment;
and the victim’s appellate right was therefore unavailable.
The Supreme Court considered whether the relevant date was:
the date of the offence; or
the date of the acquittal giving rise to the appeal. ( )

Whether the victim’s right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 applies where the offence occurred before, but the acquittal occurred after, the amendment.
How victim-right provisions should be interpreted.

The proviso to Section 372 grants a victim a right to appeal against:
acquittal;
conviction for a lesser offence;
or inadequate compensation.
The right belongs independently to the victim and is not merely dependent upon the State choosing to appeal.
The cause for exercising the right arises when the specified adverse order is passed.
Victim-right provisions should receive a purposive and liberal interpretation consistent with:
access to justice;
dignity;
participation;
and the modern recognition of victims within criminal procedure.
The appeal remains subject to:
limitation;
appellate procedure;
and the standard governing interference with acquittal.
The corresponding BNSS provision is the proviso to Section 413.

Kodagali could not appeal before the trial court delivered the acquittal.
Therefore, the operative event creating the appellate grievance was not the original offence.
It was the post-amendment order of acquittal.
Applying the older law merely because the offence occurred earlier would deprive victims of the new remedy in cases that remained pending for years.
That would be inconsistent with the amendment’s purpose.
The Court examined the historical position under which:
the State controlled appeals;
victims had little procedural voice;
and a victim could be left without an effective remedy if the State declined to act.
The proviso was intended to change that position.
The victim’s appeal does not guarantee reversal.
The appellate court must still apply:
the presumption of innocence;
the strengthened effect of acquittal;
and the Chandrappa principles.
But the victim must at least be permitted to invoke appellate scrutiny.
The High Court’s date-based interpretation defeated the remedial purpose by attaching the right to an event that occurred before the right could ever be exercised.

The Supreme Court held that the victim’s appeal was maintainable because the acquittal was delivered after the proviso to Section 372 came into force.
It restored the appeal for consideration on merits.
The judgment recognised the victim’s right of appeal as a meaningful and independent procedural entitlement. ( )