When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Part I –Appeal by a Victim in a Criminal Case

Relevant provisions relating to appeals in Criminal Cases are Sections 2(wa), 372, 374, and 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Section 2(wa):

‘2. Definitions.— In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,—
… (wa) “victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir …

Section 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided—

No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:
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 lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

Section 374. Appeals from convictions—

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person—
- (a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or(b) sentenced under Section 325, or
- (c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.
(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376- DA, Section 376-DB or Section 376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal. xxx

Section 378. Appeal in case of acquittal—

Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),—
- (a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
- (b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal—
- (a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
- (b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).’

Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, on 14 July 2025

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828 (Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.) considered the relevant provisions relating to appeals in Criminal cases and delivered a noticeable decision. It affirmed the following three earlier decisions:

Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321,
Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 (3-Judge Bench, by a majority),
Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184.

Findings in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828, in Nutshell

The Apex Court held in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828, in a nutshell, that it is quite clear, based on the plain language of the law –

A victim, as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC, would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court, to which an appeal ordinarily lies against any order acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.

Impugned View of the High Court (Set Aside by the Apex Court)

The impugned view of the High Court (set aside by the Apex Court) was that the ‘complainant’ who actually filed the written complaint alone can maintain an appeal as a ‘victim’, and that the ‘complainant’ in a case instituted upon a police report could file appeal only after seeking the leave of the High Court invoking the provisions of Section 378(3) of the CrPC.

The High Court had held as under:

‘This is a case instituted upon a police report and only in cases instituted upon private complaint, leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, leave to appeal against order of acquittal in appeal is also not maintainable in the instant case.’

Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321

In Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828, the Supreme Court quoted and followed its earlier decision in Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321. It reads as under:

‘23. A “victim” within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to he heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a “victim”, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an “informant”, and similarly, a “victim” need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.’

Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752,

In Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828, the Supreme Court also followed Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752. It has been held by a 3-Judge Bench, by a majority of 2:1, that a victim, as defined in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. It is held as under:

“73. In our opinion, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence. There is a historical reason for this, beginning with the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29-11-1985. The Declaration is sometimes referred to as the Magna Carta of the rights of victims. One of the significant declarations made was in relation to access to justice for the victim of an offence through the justice delivery mechanisms, both formal and informal. In the Declaration it was stated as follows:
“4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.
5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.
6.The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by:
Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information;
Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system;
Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;
Taking measures to minimise inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation;
Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees granting awards to victims.
7. Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, including mediation, arbitration and customary justice or indigenous practices, should be utilised, where appropriate, to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims.”
76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) CrPC. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word “complaint” has been defined in Section 2(d) CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is concerned.”

Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184

In Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828, the Supreme Court quoted the following from Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184, where it is observed as under:

“53. Therefore, by the aforesaid provision a right has been created in favour of the victim, which was not existing earlier in the Code, i.e., that a victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the proviso to Section 372 CrPC makes it clear that it wanted to confer certain rights on the victims. It has been noted therein that the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime, and they don’t have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain “rights” and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system. This, by itself, is clear that the object of adding this proviso is to create a right in favour of the victim to prefer an appeal as a matter of right. It not only extends to challenge the order of acquittal, but such appeal can also be filed by the victim if the accused is convicted for a lessor offence or if the inadequate compensation has been imposed.
54. Thus, it is clear as per the golden rule of interpretation, that the ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before. Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’ in Section 372 of CrPC by this amendment, a right has been created in favour of the victim.”

Part II –Appeal by Aggrieved-Person in Civil Cases

CPC: Provisions on Grant of Leave To Appeal

The following are the relevant provisions, as regards appeal, in the Civil Procedure Code

Section 96 – Appeal from original decree.
Section 97 – Appeal from final decree where no appeal from preliminary decree
Section 98 – Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges
Section 99 – No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction
Section 99A – No order under section 47 to be refused or modified unless decision of the case is prejudicially affected
Section 100 – Second appeal
Section 100A – No further appeal in certain cases
Section 101 – Second appeal on no other grounds
Section 102 – No second appeal in certain suits
Section 103 – Power of High Court to determine issues of fact
Section 104 – Orders from which appeal lies
Section 105 – Other orders
Section 106 – What Courts to hear appeals
Section 107 – Powers of Appellate Court
Section 108 – Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and orders
Section 109 – When appeals lie to the Supreme Court

Appeal From Any Original Decree And From Second Appeal

Sections 96 and 100 respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from a decree in appeal, respectively. They read as under:

Section 96 – Appeal from original decree:

(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Cause, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees.

Section 100 – Second appeal:

Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(1). An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
(2) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(4) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question;
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.

H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, January 29, 2025
The Apex Court in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, January 29, 2025 (J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.), pointed out that the aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. The Court proceeded into the issue analysing the following two well-founded legal propositions –

A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court.

A Prejudicially Affected Person Can File Appeal

Supreme Court of India, in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar held –

“Where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court”.

It is also pointed out that the injury complained of must not be “remote or indirect”.

The Apex Court pointed out two interesting propositions in this regard:

1. The Applicant must be “bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings”.
2. The applicant must be “a person who might properly have been a party”.

The Apex Court (H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar) Concluded on ‘grant of leave to appeal’ in para 43 as under:

“43. The principles governing the grant of leave to appeal may be summarised as under:
i. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively;
ii. The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal;
iii. However, it a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person;
iv. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court;
v. A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned;
vi. The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury;
vii. It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment; and
viii. Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

No Definition of ‘Appeal‘

The five-Judge Bench of the Privy Council in Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165, speaking through Sir Dinshaw Mulla observed that there is no definition of appeal in the CPC, but there is no doubt that any application by a party to an appellate Court, asking it to set aside or revise a decision of a subordinate Court, is an appeal within the ordinary acceptation of the term, and that it is no less an appeal because it is irregular or incompetent.

Applicant must have been aggrieved by an order or causes him some prejudice

A person who is not a party to a litigation has no right to appeal merely because the judgment or order contains some adverse remarks against him

In Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, AIR 1971 SC 385, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held as under:

“46. Generally speaking, a person can be said to be aggrieved by an order which is to his detriment, pecuniary or otherwise or causes him some prejudice in some form or other. A person who is not a party to a litigation has no right to appeal merely because the judgment or order contains some adverse remarks against him. But it has been held in a number of cases that a person who is not a party to suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court and such leave would not be refused where the judgment would be binding on him under Explanation 6 to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Leave Should Be Granted If Applicant Would Be Prejudicially Affected

In Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha vs. Golcha Properties Private Limited, (1970) 3 SCC 573 it was held as under:

“It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment.”

Applicant must Be bound by the order or is aggrieved or is prejudicially affected

In State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70, while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit, has observed thus:

“Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., [(1894) 2 Ch 410] have laid down the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it.”

Person Aggrieved Must Be One Whose Right Is Affected By The Judgment

In Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma, (2003) 1 SCC 34, it is held that an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in paragraph 15 as under:

“A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned.”

Consider Nature And Extent Of Injuries Suffered

In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616, it is held as under:

“The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined that the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant’s interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by him.”

Person aggrieved must have jeopardized; Not an imaginary injury

Referring Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592, it is observed that the expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; but, it must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized.

When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply