BALDEV SHARMA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following five points have been referred to a Larger Bench:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties state that points at serial No.1, 3 to 5 need not be answered for the reason in the decision reported as (2015) 15 SCC 613, Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be read as conferred upon the victim a right to prefer an appeal against an order acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The right is to file an application seeking leave to appeal. In the decision reported as (2010) 12 SCC 599, National Commission of Women v. State of Delhi and Anr., it has been held that a victim has no right under the proviso to challenge the sentence on ground of it being inadequate.

(3.) As regards point No.2, the date wherefrom right accrues to a victim to seek leave to appeal, in the decision reported as (2011) 6 SCC 739, Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clearly held that the 'right of appeal being a substantive right always acts prospectively. It is trite law that every statute is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.' This is a consistent position of law, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in numerous cases, such as AIR 1994 SC 2623, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 4 SCC 480, Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., and (2014) 5 SCC 219, H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. H.P. SEB,