No Second Appeal for Victim Under CrPC Against Order Confirming Acquittal: Delhi HC

Shutting the door on successive statutory appeals by victims, the High Court of Delhi ruled that a victim cannot file a second appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a judgment that confirms an order of acquittal.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that once a victim exhausts their right of appeal before the Sessions Court against a trial court's acquittal order, no further appeal can be entertained.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed that when an appellate court confirms the order of acquittal passed by a trial court, no second appeal can lie. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the appellate court in this case has confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. There cannot be any second appeal in such circumstances."

Background

The dispute arose out of an incident on August 24, 2005, wherein the victim, while returning after picking up her daughter from school, was knocked down by a Toyota Corolla car allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent. The victim succumbed to her injuries, and her daughter sustained injuries. An FIR was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC.

Upon completion of the trial under Sections 207, 251, and 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Metropolitan Magistrate, South, Saket Courts, acquitted the accused on November 5, 2015. The victim's husband (PW1) preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, which was dismissed on October 28, 2022, thereby confirming the acquittal.

Challenging the dismissal, the husband filed a further appeal before the Delhi High Court. The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable, relying on Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu ( "(2025) 10 SCC 372": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 608), Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and others ( "unnumbered CRL.L.P. Filing No. 366 of 2025, 2026:KER:81: MANU/KE/0066/2026": 2026 CaseBase(KER) 1370), and Mahesh v. Gunderao. The appellant relied upon Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy ( "(2022) 12 SCC 115": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 212) to assert maintainability.

The High Court distinguished Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy ( "(2022) 12 SCC 115": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 212), noting that it dealt with revisional powers under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereas in the present case, the appellate court had already confirmed the acquittal. Reaffirming the view taken in Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and others ( "unnumbered CRL.L.P. Filing No. 366 of 2025, 2026:KER:81: MANU/KE/0066/2026": 2026 CaseBase(KER) 1370), the Court held the second appeal incompetent and disposed of the matter while directing the registry to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 884/2023 and CRL.M.A. 28555/2023
Case Title: TALAT SHAHEDI v. VIBHOR AHLUWALIA & ANR.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate with Mr. Archit Mishra and Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. Nikhil Pillai, Mr. Shaurya and Mr. Athak Walia, Advocates for Respondent No.1; Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State/R-2 with SI Deepak Yadav

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 4778