Khem Singh (D) Through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand) & Another Etc., 2025
By recognizing the right of a legal heir to prosecute an existing appeal, it ensured the continuity of justice even after the death of an appellant.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
23 August 2025
Judges
Justice B.V. Nagarathna ⦁ Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The accused were acquitted by the High Court in a criminal case.
-
The son of the deceased victim, who was also injured in the incident, filed an appeal against acquittal in the Supreme Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
-
While the appeal was pending, the appellant died.
-
His son (the grandson of the original victim), who was also an injured victim, filed an application to be substituted in his place and continue the appeal.
-
The accused/respondents objected, arguing that the appeal had abated under Section 394(2) CrPC and only applies to appeals by convicted persons, not victims.
Issues
-
Whether a legal heir of a deceased victim-appellant can be substituted to continue an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC?
-
Whether Section 394(2) CrPC applies to victim-initiated appeals and causes them to abate upon the appellant’s death?
-
Whether the heir, who is also an injured victim, has the right to prosecute the appeal in both capacities – as heir and victim?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the appeal abated.
-
It held that legal heirs of a victim can be substituted to continue an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
-
The Court emphasized that this right would be rendered meaningless if heirs cannot prosecute an already filed appeal.
-
It allowed the grandson (legal heir and victim) to be substituted as appellant.
-
The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing, and the State and appellant were given a chance to present arguments.
Held
-
The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes legal heirs, so they can not only file but also continue appeals.
-
Denying this would defeat the purpose of the 2009 amendment that added the victim’s right to appeal.
-
The right of a legal heir does not abate under Section 394(2), as that provision is specific to accused-appellants, not victims.
-
The appeal continues through the legal heir, and the application for substitution is allowed.
Analysis
-
The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 372 CrPC, focusing on victim empowerment.
-
By recognizing the right of a legal heir to prosecute an existing appeal, it ensured the continuity of justice even after the death of an appellant.
-
The judgment strengthens victim-centric criminal procedure and prevents the loss of appeal rights due to technical procedural hurdles.
-
The Court emphasized access to justice and the legislative intent behind expanding the rights of victims under criminal law.
-
This decision also discourages a restrictive reading of procedural provisions that could undermine victim rights.