GANESH DAS Vs. RABIUL SK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the victim a necessary party to an appeal, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., from conviction? Would such an appeal be defective in the absence of impleadment of the victim? If the answers to these two questions are in the negative, what is the procedure to be adopted?

(2.) Cra No. 228 of 2020 is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code; hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."; and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; for short, "POCSO Act". He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of I.P.C. It was directed that the victim is entitled to get the said fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- if realized, in view of the second proviso to Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; for short, "Cr.P.C.". The department has noted that this appeal is defective as the victim has not been made party in this application (appeal).

(3.) Cra No. 26 of 2021 is also an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. The Court below had directed that if the fine is realized, the said amount be paid to the victim in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. In this appeal, the appellant has arrayed, among the respondents, a person described by name and disclosing that person s identity as the victim. On 08.03.2021, this Court recorded an order, inter alia, "One private person is impleaded as respondent no. 2. We are of the view that the impleadment of such person as respondent needs to be considered, on the point, whether it is to be permitted".