Section 413 BNSS

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled that a victim’s legal heirs can continue prosecuting an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) if the victim dies during its pendency, ensuring the right to appeal is not rendered redundant. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Khem Singh (D) Through LRS v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (2025). 

What was the Background of Khem Singh (D) Through LRS v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (2025) Case ? 

• A heated exchange occurred between two rival groups with longstanding enmity in Haridwar district on 8th December 1992. The following day, 9th December 1992, at approximately 8:00 AM, a violent armed attack took place involving firearms, sharp weapons, and bricks. 
• Complainant Tara Chand, his brother Virendra Singh, and son Khem Singh were attacked by multiple accused persons. Virendra Singh suffered fatal injuries and died during the assault. Both Tara Chand and his son Khem Singh sustained serious injuries but survived the attack. 
• The prosecution alleged distinct roles for three main accused persons. Accused No. 2 Ashok fired upon Virendra Singh using a gun. Accused No. 3 Pramod fired upon Khem Singh using a gun. Accused No. 4 Anil alias Neelu fired upon Smt. Mithilesh, wife of Khem Singh. 
• Case Crime No. 547/92 was registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar on 9th December, 1992, based on Tara Chand's complaint. The three respondents-accused were charged under multiple IPC sections including 148, 452, 302, 307, 149, and 326. 
• Sessions Trial No. 133/1993 was conducted before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar.  
• The Sessions Court delivered judgment on 2-4 th August 2004, convicting all three accused and sentencing them to life imprisonment along with additional rigorous imprisonment terms and fines. 
• The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeals before High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court allowed all appeals through common judgment dated September 12, 2012, and acquitted all three respondents-accused, completely overturning the Sessions Court conviction. 
• Injured victim Khem Singh filed Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court challenging the High Court's acquittal order. Leave was granted on 6th July, 2017, converting petitions into Criminal Appeals.  
• During pendency, Khem Singh died, and his son Raj Kumar applied for substitution as legal heir to continue prosecuting the appeals. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Victim's Right to Appeal: 
  • The Supreme Court observed that the 2009 amendments to CrPC, particularly the proviso to Section 372 and definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa), granted victims an independent statutory right to appeal against acquittals, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation. This right operates independently without requiring special leave from High Court unlike complainants under Section 378(4) CrPC. 
• Interpretation of Appeal Rights: 
  • The Court held that "right to prefer an appeal" includes not just filing but also "right to prosecute an appeal." Restricting it to mere filing would render the provision meaningless and defeat parliamentary intent of strengthening victims' rights in criminal justice. 
• Legal Heir's Continuation Rights: 
  • The Court ruled that when a victim-appellant dies during appeal pendency, their legal heir can continue prosecuting the appeal. This flows from the inclusive definition of "victim" which expressly includes legal heirs. The abatement provisions under Section 394 CrPC apply primarily to appeals by accused persons, not victim appeals. 
• Critique of High Court Judgment: 
  • The Court critically observed that the High Court's judgment was "cryptic" and lacked reasoned analysis. While judgments need not be lengthy, they must reflect proper judicial application to crucial evidence and provide adequate reasoning. Appellate courts must independently evaluate evidence and assess whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Remand Order 
  • The Court set aside the High Court judgment solely for inadequate reasoning without commenting on merits, remanding for fresh consideration with directions for expeditious disposal given the case dates to 1992. 
• Court establishes that victims' appeal rights under CrPC amendments are substantive rights that can be inherited and prosecuted by legal heirs, ensuring meaningful access to justice even after the original victim's death during proceedings. 

What is Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 413 of BNSS replaces Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintaining the same legal framework and principles. The provision has been carried forward from the old criminal procedure code to the new Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita with identical language and intent. 
• General Prohibition on Appeals: 
  • The section establishes that no appeal lies from criminal court judgments or orders except as specifically provided by BNSS or other laws. This creates a restrictive gateway preventing unauthorized appeals while maintaining judicial hierarchy. 
• Victim's Independent Appeal Right: 
  • The proviso grants victims autonomous right to appeal against three scenarios: 
  • Complete acquittal of accused persons 
  • Conviction for lesser offences than originally charged 
  • Imposition of inadequate compensation 
• Appellate Jurisdiction: 
  • Victim appeals lie to courts that ordinarily hear appeals against conviction orders, maintaining established appellate hierarchy. This prevents forum shopping while ensuring appropriate judicial review of victim grievances. 
  • The section reflects evolution from State-centric prosecution to victim-participatory model, recognizing victims as primary stakeholders deserving independent appellate rights beyond mere witness status. 
• Procedural Framework: 
  • The provision maintains procedural integrity by channeling victim appeals through established appellate courts rather than creating special mechanisms. This ensures judicial expertise while expanding access to justice. 
  • Section 413 aligns with constitutional principles of access to justice and equal protection, acknowledging that victims have legitimate interests in criminal proceedings requiring appellate protection mechanisms. 
  • While the State retains separate appellate powers under other provisions, victims' rights under Section 413 operate independently. Victims need not await State action and can directly challenge unsatisfactory judicial outcomes. 
  • The section enables victims to seek appellate review when trial courts fail to adequately address their suffering through acquittals, reduced charges, or insufficient compensation, ensuring meaningful participation in criminal justice process.