Appeal u/s 372 Crpc for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable: Supreme Court of India

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2019 aggrieved by the order dated 27th by the appellant herein under Section 372 of the Code of Sessions Case No.742 of 2007 by the Special Judge North District Rohini District Courts Delhi vide order dated 2007 registered on 15.10.2007 for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and the second respondent Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 herein was the accused. After investigation of the crime chargesheet dated 11.01.2008 was filed against the second respondent­accused under Sections 364A 302 201 IPC. On committal case was referred to the court of Special Judge NDPS) North District Rohini Courts Delhi and the second respondent was tried in Sessions Case No.58259 of 2016. By punishable under Sections 364A 302 and 201 IPC. By offence under Sections 302 364A and 201 IPC as under of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of fine he is of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of fine he is C) The convict is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable u s 201 IPC and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50 000 ­. In default of payment of of Section 428 Cr.PC shall be given to the convict Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 The complainant who is the father of the deceased boy has filed appeal challenging the order of sentence dated 17 th August 2019 passed by ASJ Special Judge North District before the High Court under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 it was his case that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the second respondent­convict is inadequate and needs to be enhanced to death penalty. Vide impugned judgment dated 27th November 5. We have heard Sri Ashwani Bhardwaj learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri Chirag M. Shroff learned the Sessions Court instead to award punishment of death prefer appeal to the victim when the accused is convicted for Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 only for a lesser offence but not for lesser sentence. It is murdered. As such it is submitted that it is a fit case for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty for the second respondent. The learned counsel has under Section 372 Cr.PC properly vis­a­vis the judgments the State of NCT of Delhi that a reading of provision under Section 372 and Section 377 of Cr.PC makes it clear that the convicting for lesser offence or for imposing inadequate compensation only whereas under Section 377 Cr.PC State the event of inadequate sentence by the Sessions Court. It is stated by learned counsel that for enhancement of sentence Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 Having heard learned counsel on both sides we have Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 deals with ‘Appeals’ and Section 372 makes it clear that no 372 Cr.PC. The proviso is inserted to Section 372 Cr.PC by Act Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim’s right of appeal is concerned same is restricted to three eventualities namely acquittal of the accused conviction of the accused for lesser offence or for imposing inadequate Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer 377 Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the victim under Section 372 Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is provided either under in force no appeal seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim is maintainable. Further we are of the of Delhi & Anr. 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.39220 10. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this

Summary: For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed held by the division bench of Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R. Subhash Reddy in Parvinder Kansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2020] that an appeal filed u/s 372 of Crpc for an inadequate sentence is not maintainable. Upholding the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which dismissed the appeal filed by the Victim for enhancement of sentence. The Victim contended before the court that proviso to Section 372 of Cr. PC provides the right to appeal to the victim when the accused is convicted for a lesser offence, there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal only for a lesser offence but not for a lesser sentence, The Hon’ble court while examining the scope of the proviso to Section 372 of Crpc observed that a victims right to appeal is restricted to three eventualities a.) Acquittal of the accused; b) conviction of accused of lesser offence and c) imposing inadequate compensation. The Apex Court while coinciding with the High Court on placing reliance on National Commission for Women V. State of Delhi &amp; Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 599], observed that