Parvinder Kansal vs. The State Of Nct Of Delhi
AI Summary
In a landmark decision on victim's appellate rights, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a victim cannot appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even in heinous crimes like kidnapping and murder. The Court dismissed the appeal of a father seeking death penalty for his son's killer, establishing that only the State Government can appeal for inadequate sentences under Section 377 CrPC.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
On October 15, 2007, the son of Parvinder Kansal was kidnapped. The kidnappers demanded ransom, which was paid. However, after receiving the ransom, the accused Sidharth Jaitley brutally murdered the child. FIR No. 742 of 2007 was registered under Sections 364A read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed on January 11, 2008 under Sections 364A/302/201 IPC. The case was tried before the Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58259 of 2016. By judgment dated July 30, 2019, the accused was convicted under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC. By order dated August 17, 2019, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 364A, with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each (default SI for 5 years), and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 201 with a fine of Rs. 50,000 (default SI for 1 year), with all sentences running concurrently and benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted for Section 201 conviction. Parvinder Kansal, the father of the deceased, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi under Section 372 CrPC seeking enhancement of sentence to death penalty. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable vide order dated November 27, 2019. Kansal then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was converted to Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2020.
Timeline of Events
Son of Parvinder Kansal kidnapped; ransom demanded and paid
Kidnapped child brutally murdered by the accused
FIR No. 742 of 2007 registered under Sections 364A read with Section 34 IPC
Chargesheet filed against accused under Sections 364A/302/201 IPC
Case referred to Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi as Sessions Case No. 58259 of 2016
Judgment of conviction delivered; accused convicted under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC
Sentencing order passed; accused sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 364A, and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201
High Court of Delhi dismisses appeal for sentence enhancement as not maintainable
Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court
First hearing in Supreme Court; case mentioned
Case heard and reserved; Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay allowed
Supreme Court pronounces order; leave granted but appeal dismissed
Key Factual Findings
The accused Sidharth Jaitley was convicted by the trial court for kidnapping with intent to murder (Section 364A), murder (Section 302), and destruction of evidence (Section 201) IPC
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment
The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 364A with fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 with fine of Rs. 50,000
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by Parvinder Kansal under Section 372 CrPC seeking enhancement of sentence to death penalty
Source: Recited from Impugned Order
The proviso to Section 372 CrPC restricts victim's appeal rights to three eventualities: acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation
Source: Current Court Finding
Section 377 CrPC empowers the State Government to appeal for enhancement of sentence, but no similar power is granted to victims under Section 372 CrPC
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The appellant (Parvinder Kansal) argued that: (1) The accused committed a heinous crime - kidnapping a child, demanding and receiving ransom, and then brutally murdering the child; (2) The sentence of life imprisonment is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the gravity of the crime; (3) The proviso to Section 372 CrPC should be interpreted broadly to allow victims to appeal for inadequate sentences, not just for inadequate compensation; (4) There is no logical reason to restrict victim's appeal rights only for lesser offences but not for lesser sentences; (5) The High Court misinterpreted Section 372 CrPC and failed to properly consider the plain meaning of the statute; (6) Justice demands that the death penalty should be imposed for such a brutal crime against an innocent child.
Respondent's Arguments
The State of Delhi argued that: (1) Section 372 and Section 377 CrPC must be read together to understand the legislative intent; (2) The proviso to Section 372 CrPC explicitly restricts victim's appeal rights to three situations: acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; (3) Enhancement of sentence is not one of the three specified grounds for victim's appeal; (4) Section 377 CrPC specifically empowers the State Government (not victims) to appeal for enhancement of sentence; (5) The remedy of appeal is a creature of statute and can only be exercised where explicitly provided by law; (6) The High Court correctly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under the plain reading of Section 372 CrPC.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court's reasoning proceeded as follows: (1) Chapter XXIX of CrPC deals with appeals and Section 372 is the foundational provision; (2) The proviso to Section 372, inserted by Act 5 of 2009, explicitly lists three eventualities where victim can appeal: acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; (3) A plain reading of the proviso makes clear that victim's appeal rights are restricted to these three situations only; (4) While victim is given opportunity to appeal for inadequate compensation, there is no provision for victim to appeal for inadequate sentence; (5) Section 377 CrPC specifically grants the State Government (not victims) the power to appeal for enhancement of sentence; (6) The remedy of appeal is a creature of statute and unless explicitly provided, no appeal can be maintained; (7) The High Court correctly relied on the precedent of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable; (8) The legislative scheme clearly distinguishes between victim's limited appeal rights and State's broader appeal rights for sentence enhancement.
- Strict Adherence to Statutory Language
- Emphasis on Legislative Intent
- Respect for Statutory Scheme and Hierarchy
- Creature of Statute Doctrine
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Leave granted to file the Special Leave Petition
- 2.Criminal Appeal dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable order
Precedential Assessment
Binding (SC)
This is a Supreme Court judgment that clarifies the interpretation of Section 372 CrPC and establishes binding precedent on victim's appellate rights. All lower courts and future Supreme Court benches must follow this interpretation unless overruled by a larger bench or constitutional amendment.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
28 Aug 2020
Order Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020]
Parvinder Kansal …..Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. …..Respondents
O R D E R
-
Leave granted.
-
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 27th November 2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the aforesaid order, High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.742 of 2007 by the Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini District Courts, Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2019.
-
The appellant herein was the complainant in FIR No.742 of 2007 registered on 15.10.2007 for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 34, IPC and the second respondent Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2020.08.28 16:16:34 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
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 judgment dated 30th July 2019 in the above said Sessions Case No.742 of 2007 the second respondent was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364A, 302 and 201, IPC. By subsequent order dated 17th August 2019 he was sentenced for offence under Sections 302, 364A and 201, IPC as under :
"14. In view of above observations this Court directs that :
A) The convict is sentenced with imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI for five years.
B) The convict is sentenced with imprisonment for life u/s 364A IPC and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI for five years.
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 fine, he is directed to undergo SI for one year.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC shall be given to the convict qua the offence u/s 201 IPC."
-
The complainant, who is the father of the deceased boy, has filed appeal challenging the order of sentence dated 17th August 2019 passed by ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.58259 of 2016 seeking enhancement of sentence to death penalty. In the appeal filed before the High Court under Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.PC'), 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 2019 the High Court of Delhi has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
-
We have heard Sri Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri Chirag M. Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the State of NCT of Delhi.
-
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant, though the respondent no.2 had committed murder of an innocent child, the Sessions Court, instead to award punishment of death penalty, has awarded only imprisonment for life. It is contended that in view of proviso to Section 372, Cr.PC which gives right to prefer appeal to the victim, when the accused is convicted for
lesser offence, there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal only for a lesser offence but not for lesser sentence. It is submitted that on 15.10.2007 when the son of the appellant was kidnapped and demand of ransom was made which was also paid to the second respondent but after kidnap his son was brutally 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 submitted that the High Court has not considered the provision under Section 372, Cr.PC properly visavis the judgments referred to and dismissed the appeal, contrary to plain meaning of Section 372, Cr.PC.
-
On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for 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 appeal under Section 372 Cr.PC by the victim is a qualified one which is maintainable in the event of acquittal of the accused or convicting for lesser offence or for imposing inadequate compensation only, whereas under Section 377 Cr.PC State Government is empowered to prefer appeal to the High Court in the event of inadequate sentence by the Sessions Court. It is stated by learned counsel that for enhancement of sentence, victim cannot maintain appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC.
-
Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the material on record and the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 'Appeals' and Section 372 makes it clear that no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force. It is not in dispute that in the instant case appellant has preferred appeal only under Section 372, Cr.PC. The proviso is inserted to Section 372, Cr.PC by Act 5 of 2009. Section 372 and the proviso which is subsequently inserted read as under:
"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."
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
compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by 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 Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable. Further we are of the view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable.
- 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.
………….………………………………...J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN]
….…………………………………………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi. August 28, 2020.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order