Summary and Analysis of Khem Singh D Thr LRs vs State of Uttarakhand & Anr
1. Heading of the Judgment
Khem Singh (D) Thr. LRs vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2025 INSC 1024)
Decided on: To be specified from the official report (Date not in provided excerpt)
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Topic: Right of a Victim's Legal Heir to Continue an Appeal Against Acquittal; Scope and Powers of an Appellate Court.
Citation: Khem Singh (D) Thr. LRs vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., 2025 INSC 1024
2. Related Laws and Legal Sections
The judgment extensively interprets and relies on the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
Section 2(wa) CrPC: Defines a "victim" to include a person who has suffered loss or injury and also their guardian or legal heir.
Section 372 CrPC (Proviso): Grants the victim a right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.
Section 394 CrPC: Deals with the abatement of appeals on the death of the appellant. The Court analyzed its application to appeals filed by victims.
Sections 377 & 378 CrPC: Deal with appeals by the State against inadequate sentence and against acquittal, respectively. The Court contrasted these with the victim's right under Section 372.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Relied upon to emphasize the broad right of access to justice.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Origin: Appeals arose from a common judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 12.09.2012, which acquitted the accused persons.
Original Case: Sessions Trial No. 133/1993 related to an incident on 09.12.1992 involving a murder (of Virendra Singh) and attempt to murder (of informant Tara Chand and his son Khem Singh).
Trial Court Outcome (2004): The Sessions Court convicted accused Ashok, Pramod, and Anil @ Neelu and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Other co-accused were acquitted.
High Court Outcome (2012): The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the convicted accused and acquitted them all.
Appeal to Supreme Court: The original appellant, Khem Singh (an injured victim), challenged this acquittal. During the pendency of these appeals, Khem Singh passed away.
Interlocutory Applications: His son, Raj Kumar (also an injured victim), filed applications to set aside the abatement caused by his father's death, condone the delay in filing, and be substituted as the appellant.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's judgment addresses two core issues sequentially.
Part I: On the Substitution of the Legal Heir (Victim) to Continue the Appeal
The central legal question was whether the son (and legal heir) of the deceased original appellant (who was a victim) could be substituted to continue prosecuting the appeal against the acquittal, or whether the appeal had "abated" (ended) upon the appellant's death.
Arguments Against Substitution:
The lawyers for the accused argued that under Section 394(2) CrPC, "every other appeal" (other than those by the State) abates on the death of the appellant. They contended that this includes appeals by victims and their legal heirs cannot be substituted.
Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision:
The Court rejected this argument and allowed the substitution. Its reasoning was multi-faceted:
Expansive Definition of "Victim": The Court emphasized that the definition under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive. A "victim" is not just the person directly injured but also includes their legal heir. This showed Parliament's intent to give victims' families a voice in the judicial process.
"Right to Prefer" includes "Right to Prosecute": The Court held that the phrase "right to prefer an appeal" in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must be interpreted practically to include the "right to prosecute an appeal". A mere right to file an appeal is meaningless if it extinguishes upon the victim's death before a hearing. The right must include the ability to see it through to its logical conclusion.
Object of the Law: The 2009 amendment introducing the victim's right to appeal was based on Law Commission reports aimed at balancing the scales of justice and giving victims a substantive right. Denying a legal heir the right to continue an appeal would frustrate this very object and make the right hollow.
Distinction from Section 394 CrPC: The Court clarified that Section 394 primarily deals with abatement on the death of an accused appellant. The proviso to Section 394(2) allows the legal heirs of a deceased accused to continue an appeal to clear his name. The Court applied the same logic symmetrically: if the legal heirs of an accused can continue an appeal, the legal heirs of a victim must also be allowed to do so to seek justice.
Constitutional Right to Access Justice: Relying on precedent (PSR Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam), the Court underscored that access to justice is a fundamental aspect of the constitutional framework. A hyper-technical interpretation that blocks a bona fide seeker of justice (like a victim's heir) should be avoided.
Factual Fortuity: The Court noted that the applicant seeking substitution was not only the legal heir but was himself an injured victim in the same incident and could have filed an appeal in his own right. This made his case even stronger.
Conclusion on Substitution: The Court condoned the delay, set aside the abatement, and allowed Raj Kumar to be substituted in place of his deceased father, Khem Singh, to prosecute the appeals.
Part II: On the Merits of the Acquittal by the High Court
After allowing the substitution, the Court heard arguments on the main appeals challenging the High Court's acquittal order.
Appellant's (Victim's) Argument:
The primary contention was that the High Court's judgment was "cryptic" – extremely brief and lacking in reasoning. It reversed a conviction for serious offences (murder and attempt to murder) and awarded a full acquittal without discussing the evidence, re-appreciating the witness testimonies, or explaining why it disagreed with the detailed findings of the Trial Court. This was a fatal flaw.
Accused's Argument:
The accused argued that a judgment need not be lengthy to be valid. As long as the reasoning is discernible, it is sufficient.
Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision:
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant. It held:
The High Court, as a first appellate court against a conviction, has a duty to reappraise the entire evidence independently and give reasons for its conclusion.
The impugned judgment was devoid of any discussion of the evidence or reasons for discarding the Trial Court's view. This constituted a serious error of law.
The Court clarified that it was making no comment on the merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused. The remand was solely because the High Court failed to perform its essential appellate function.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal judgment for being cryptic and lacking in reasoning.
It remanded the matters (Criminal Appeal Nos. 254, 258 & 259 of 2004) back to the High Court of Uttarakhand for a fresh hearing on merits.
The High Court was directed to rehear the appeals expeditiously, giving full opportunity to all parties, and pass a reasoned judgment after properly appreciating the evidence.
The accused were directed to remain on bail, subject to fresh bonds and conditions set by the Trial Court.
Blog Posts
