Section 372 CrPC | Victim's Appeal For Enhancement Of Sentence Is Not Maintainable: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court held that a victim cannot maintain a criminal appeal solely on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate. It clarified that the victim's right of appeal under Section 372 CrPC is limited to only three contingencies: (i) acquittal of the accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, or (iii) imposition of inadequate compensation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the victim (Appellant) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIth cum Special Judge (POCSO), Patna.

The trial court had convicted the accused (Respondent No. 2) under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of ₹5,000 but had acquitted him of charges under the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution, the victim, aged about 15 years, left her house for coaching at around 9 AM on January 19, 2022, but did not return. It was alleged that the accused took her away from the informant's house, where she had been residing for the past two years.

While adducing evidence during the trial, the victim and her parents further alleged that the accused had administered an intoxicant to her and subjected her to sexual misconduct and assault.

The victim preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence under Section 363 IPC and also prayed that the respondent be convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act (sexual harassment).

Aggrieved by what she termed an inadequate sentence, the victim submitted that the trial court erred in failing to award the maximum punishment under Section 363 of the IPC.

On the other hand, the accused argued that the victim's version regarding intoxication and sexual assault was a material improvement over her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and was inconsistent with the Investigating Officer's testimony.

The High Court held that medical evidence clearly established that no sexual offence had been committed, and refused to interfere with the acquittal under Section 12 POCSO.

However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, holding that it was established that the minor victim had been taken away by the accused without the consent of lawful guardians.

The Court observed that while the core fact of the victim being taken away stood proved, the subsequent allegations relating to intoxication, sexual misconduct, threats, confinement and recovery were an 'afterthought' which was unsupported by the contemporaneous statements and contradicted by the Investigating Officer.

On the question of law regarding the enhancement of sentence, the Court noted that Section 372 CrPC permits a victim's appeal only in limited circumstances, namely against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and does not confer any independent right to appeal for enhancement of sentence.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Another, the Court held that no appeal can be maintained by a victim solely on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate.

It noted:

"45. A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as the vicitm's right of the appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377 Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence".

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court's order and affirmed the sentence. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Title: XXX v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1724 of 2025.

Appearance: Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Ramchandra Singh and Mr. Ramji Kumar appeared for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order