SUMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on the admission of this appeal. The Bench had, suo moto, raised the question of maintainability of the present appeal and in that connection referred to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

(2.) To illustrate, if an accused has been charged under Section 302 of IPC and after trial, if he is convicted by the trial Court for offences, like, 304 I or II or Section 326 or 325, etc., then it could be a conviction for a lesser offence and in such a situation, the victim or informant could have a right to prefer an appeal. The third contingency, in which the Legislature was vesting a right to appeal in a victim of an offence was in respect of the quantum of compensation, which is to be provided by the Courts of law under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. This is a new provision and the jurisdiction of the Court to direct payment of compensation, which was not made appealable earlier. By judgments by various Courts, it was held to be an ancillary jurisdiction, complimentary to the main jurisdiction of a Court of trial to inflict appropriate sentence so as to sending a message to the society that the Legislature has attempted to reconcile the victim of offence to be situation of the commission of the offences. If there could be any other case, then besides the three categories of cases, which we have just enumerated, the right to appeal could not be exercised by anyone. Here, the present appeal requires the Court to examine the appropriateness of the sentence, which was inflicted upon respondent No. 2 after, he had been convicted for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, as the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was submitting that in case of injuries, the second part of the provision of Section 307 of IPC requires the Court to inflict the rigorous sentence of life imprisonment upon the convicted accused. Thus what appears is that the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 307 of IPC is not challenged by the present appellant as for an offence lesser than under which he had been charged with. The provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. could not be utilised for preferring an appeal to seek the enhancement in sentence. The law is trite that if there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. even the inherent powers of the Court could not be exercised to grant a relief. Section 377 Cr.P.C. gives a specific right to the State Government to file appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence. The informant does not have that right to prefer an appeal and, as such, we find that the appeal is not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi and the right to file an appeal. The same is dismissed as such.