Introduction:

In an important ruling clarifying the scope of a victim’s right to appeal under criminal law, the Patna High Court, through Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, held that a victim cannot maintain a criminal appeal solely on the ground that the sentence awarded by the trial court is inadequate, the Court reiterated that the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) grants a limited statutory right of appeal to victims only in three specific situations—namely, where the accused has been acquitted, where the accused has been convicted for a lesser offence, or where inadequate compensation has been awarded, and not where the grievance is only against the quantum of punishment, the ruling was delivered while hearing a criminal appeal filed by the victim against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge (POCSO), Patna, in which the accused was convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, but was acquitted of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the victim, aggrieved by what she perceived as a lenient sentence and by the acquittal under the POCSO Act, sought enhancement of sentence as well as conviction of the accused under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, however, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, holding that no appeal by a victim lies merely for enhancement of sentence and that the acquittal under the POCSO Act was supported by medical and investigative evidence, this judgment not only reaffirms the statutory framework governing victim appeals but also delineates the boundaries between the victim’s rights and the State’s prosecutorial powers under Section 377 CrPC, which exclusively authorizes the State to seek enhancement of sentence, thereby preserving the legislative balance between individual grievance redressal and public prosecution policy.

Arguments:

The appeal arose out of an incident dated 19 January 2022, when the victim, aged about 15 years, allegedly left her residence for coaching at around 9 AM but did not return, according to the prosecution case, she had been residing at the informant’s house for the previous two years, and it was alleged that the accused took her away from there without the consent of her lawful guardians, during the course of trial, the victim and her parents further alleged that the accused had administered an intoxicant to her, subjected her to sexual misconduct, and threatened and confined her, however, these allegations emerged more clearly during trial and were not fully reflected in the victim’s earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, on behalf of the victim, learned counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar contended that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused of charges under the POCSO Act despite the victim’s testimony regarding sexual harassment and assault, it was further argued that even assuming conviction under Section 363 IPC alone, the trial court failed to award the maximum punishment prescribed under law, and therefore the sentence was grossly inadequate considering the vulnerability of the minor victim and the gravity of the act of kidnapping, the victim thus sought enhancement of sentence as well as conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, on the other hand, the accused, represented through the State by Mr. Ramchandra Singh and Mr. Ramji Kumar, opposed the appeal by pointing out that the victim’s allegations of intoxication and sexual assault were not corroborated by medical evidence and were inconsistent with the Investigating Officer’s testimony, it was argued that the medical examination categorically ruled out any sexual offence, and that the subsequent embellishments in testimony amounted to material improvements that could not be relied upon to overturn an acquittal, it was further submitted that the conviction under Section 363 IPC was justified because the minor had been taken away without guardian consent, but the sentence awarded was within statutory limits and proportionate to the established offence, most importantly, the State argued that the appeal itself was not maintainable under Section 372 CrPC insofar as it sought enhancement of sentence, because the statute clearly restricts victim appeals to acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and does not permit a victim to seek enhancement of punishment, such power, it was contended, lies exclusively with the State under Section 377 CrPC, the defence thus urged that the appeal be dismissed at the threshold for want of maintainability as well as on merits.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the factual record and the legal framework, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, holding that neither on facts nor on law did the victim have a sustainable case, first, on the issue of acquittal under the POCSO Act, the Court held that medical evidence clearly established that no sexual offence had been committed, and therefore interference with the trial court’s acquittal under Section 12 of the POCSO Act was not warranted, the Court noted that the victim’s allegations regarding intoxication, sexual misconduct, threats, confinement, and manner of recovery were absent or substantially diluted in her contemporaneous statements and were contradicted by the Investigating Officer, the Court characterized these later claims as an “afterthought” not supported by independent or medical evidence, however, on the charge of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the accused had taken away a minor girl without the consent of her lawful guardians, which satisfied the essential ingredients of the offence, and therefore upheld the conviction, the central legal issue, however, concerned the maintainability of the appeal insofar as it sought enhancement of sentence, the Court undertook a statutory interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and held that the victim’s right to appeal is expressly confined to three contingencies—(i) acquittal of the accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, and (iii) imposition of inadequate compensation, the Court observed that while the legislature consciously provided a right to victims to challenge inadequate compensation, it deliberately did not extend that right to challenge inadequate sentence, the Court further noted that Section 377 CrPC vests the power to seek enhancement of sentence exclusively in the State Government, thereby reflecting legislative intent that sentencing policy remains primarily within the public prosecution domain rather than individual victim grievance, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Another, the High Court reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by a victim solely on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate, the Court observed that permitting such appeals would amount to judicially rewriting statutory limits and disturbing the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court thus concluded that the appeal was not maintainable to the extent it sought enhancement of sentence and that the acquittal under the POCSO Act did not suffer from perversity or misappreciation of evidence, accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment in toto and dismissed the criminal appeal at the admission stage itself, thereby reaffirming both the statutory limits on victim appeals and the evidentiary standards required to sustain convictions under sexual offence laws.