Madishetty Buchaiah v. Penchala Ashok

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.391 of 2015 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the defacto complainant (P.W.1), who is the father of the deceased Madishetty Venkateshwarlu, against the judgment dated 23.08.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.583 of 2007 by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby the 1st respondent/A-9 was acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

Now the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant, who is the de facto complainant, can maintain this appeal against the order of a Criminal Court acquitting the 1st respondent, in view of the amendment to Section 372 Cr.P.C.?

In the instant case, the incident has taken place on 02.02.2006 and the amendment to Section 372 Cr.P.C. has come into force with effect from 31.12.2009 by virtue of Act 5 of 2009, where the victim can prefer an appeal against acquittal. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in National Commission for Women V. State of Delhi[1], a Division Bench of this Court in D.Sudhakar V. Panapu Sreenivasulu[2], held as follows:

"This issue will not hold us for long, in view of the fact

that the apex Court in National Commission for Women V. State of Delhi (supra), has already held that the amendment is not applicable to cases where the incident has taken place prior to amendment. Therefore, even on this count, the appellant fails, and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable."

As the incident in the present case happened allegedly on 02.02.2006, no right has accrued to the victim of the deceased to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in terms of amended provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C. and as per its amended provisions, a victim has right to file an appeal against the acquittal of accused after 31.12.2009. Admittedly the incident allegedly happened prior to the amendment of the said provision, no appeal can be maintained by the victim and hence it is liable to be dismissed on that sole ground.

Accordingly the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J ___________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 29.04.2015 Gsn.

[1] 2010 (1) SCALE 17 [2] 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 366 (AP)