Subhro Prokas Mukherjee argues that the interpretation adopted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satya Pal Singh is palpably at variance with the text of the Code itself, which leads to further inconsistent implications.

Abstract

This article argues that that the Learned Division Bench of
Hon’ble Apex Court erred in the case of Satya Pal Singh vs.
1
State of Madhya Pradesh where it held that a ‘victim’ as
defined under section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (‘the Code’), could only prefer a leave to appeal
against acquittal under section 378 (3) and not prefer an
appeal directly under the proviso to section 372 of the Code. It
is argued that such an interpretation places an unnecessary
restriction on the victim’s right to appeal and has little basis to
support itself. The interpretation adopted by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Satya Pal Singh is palpably at variance with the text
of the Code itself, which leads to further inconsistent
implications.