D. SUDHAKAR Vs. PANAPU SREENIVASULU @ EVONE WATER SREENIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who claims to be the brother of the deceased has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2011, passed in S.C. No. 34 of 2009, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and respondents-accused Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the de facto complainant and he being the brother of the deceased and P.W.1 in the case, is a victim, and having regard to the definition of the word 'victim', as defined in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., and the proviso appended to Section 372 Cr.P.C., at his instance, criminal appeal, against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, is maintainable.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that as per the proviso appended to Section 372 Cr.P.C., only the victim has a right to prefer an appeal against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The appellant being the de facto complainant and brother of the deceased and P.W.1 in the case, he will not come within the definition of the word 'victim', as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., at his instance, criminal appeal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C., against the order of a criminal court acquitting the accused, is not maintainable. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and of the High Court of Kerala in John v. Shibu Cherian, 2001 Laws(Ker) 844. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-de facto complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused.