Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka - Case Analysis

Introduction of Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka

The case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) vs State of Karnataka centres around the rights of victims in criminal proceedings particularly the right to appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The primary issue in this case was whether a victim of a crime could appeal against the acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Criminal Procedure Code. The decision of the Supreme Court expanded the rights of victims in India.

Historical Context and Facts of Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka

Earlier the criminal justice system primarily focused on the rights of the accused and often sidelined the victims of crime. The insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on 31st December 2009 marked an important shift. The proviso to Section 372 of the Code granted the victims the right to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offences or inadequate sentencing.

Background of the Case

In the case at hand, the Appellant, Kodagali was the victim of an attack on the night of 6th February 2009. He lodged a First Information Report against the attack. The accused persons after the completion of investigation were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 

Decision of the Trial Court

The trial took place in the District and Sessions Court of Bagalkot, Karnataka. The District and Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. 

Appeal in the High Court

Kodagali, aggrieved by the acquittal granted by the Trial Court, filed an appeal in the Karnataka High Court under the proviso to Section 372 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal and found that it was not maintainable. The Court was of the opinion that since the offence occurred before the insertion of the proviso, the victim did not have the right to appeal. The Court relied on the decision in National Commission for Women vs State of Delhi (2010).

Second Appeal

After the dismissal of the first appeal, Kodagali filed another appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, the second appeal was also dismissed on the grounds that the section only applied to cases instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate. 

Appeal in the Supreme Court

Kodagali, aggrieved by the decisions of the High Court, approached the Supreme Court.

Issue addressed in Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka

The main question which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether a victim has the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against an acquittal?
• Does the victim need to apply for leave to appeal against the acquittal?

Legal Provisions involved in Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka

Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

According to Section 2 (wa) ‘Victim’ means- 

• a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.
• The expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 372 of the Code states that no appeal shall lie from any judgement or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicted for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 378 of the Code deals with appeal in case of acquittal. It states that-

• Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5)-

1. the District Magistrate may in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognisable and non-bailable offence
2. the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under clause(a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.

• If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may subject to the provisions of sub-Section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal-

1. to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognisable and non-bailable offence
2. to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.

1. No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
2. If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
3. No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
4. If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).

Judgment and Impact of Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) vs State of Karnataka held that a victim of an offence has the right to file an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that victims of an offence have an independent right to appeal against -

• an acquittal
• conviction for a lesser offence or 
• inadequate sentencing without seeking leave from the court

The Supreme Court also clarified that victims do not need special leave to appeal which was previously required under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The proviso to Section 372 stands independently and gives the victim direct access to file an appeal.

Thus, the appeal of Kodagali was allowed by the Supreme Court. The case was remanded to the Karnataka High Court to hear the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to entertain the appeal under Section 372 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without requiring the victim to seek special leave or permission to appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) vs State of Karnataka reflects an important shift in the criminal justice system by highlighting the rights of victims. The decision confirmed that under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, victims have an independent right to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offences or inadequate sentencing without needing special leave from the court.