Delhi High Court Rejects Husband’s Second Appeal Against Driver’s Acquittal in Wife’s Road Accident Death; Holds Section 372 CrPC Does Not Permit Successive Appeals
Delhi High Court Holds Confirmed Acquittal Cannot Face Second Victim Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC; Dismisses Husband’s Challenge Without Examining Accident Case Merits
Facts
The appellant, Talat Shahedi, was the husband of the deceased, Shahin Praveen. He filed the present appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, challenging the acquittal of Respondent No. 1, Vibhor Ahluwalia.
The prosecution case arose from a road accident on 24 August 2005 at about 1:00 p.m. Shahin Praveen was returning after picking up her daughter from school when she reached near Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Sai Baba Mandir Bus Stand, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi.
The prosecution alleged that Vibhor Ahluwalia, driving a Toyota Corolla bearing registration No. DL 7CG 0316, drove rashly and negligently and knocked Shahin Praveen down. She sustained injuries and subsequently died. Her daughter Ayesha was also injured.
Crime No. 227/2005 was registered at Lodhi Colony Police Station for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, by judgment dated 5 November 2015, acquitted the accused of all offences.
The deceased’s husband then exercised his right as a victim and filed Criminal Appeal No. 204170/2016 before the Sessions Court. On 28 October 2022, the Sessions Court dismissed that appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
The husband thereafter approached the Delhi High Court by filing another appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
The central controversy before the High Court was therefore not the merits of the rash and negligent driving allegation, but whether a victim has a statutory right to file a second appeal after the first appellate court has already confirmed the acquittal.
Issues
The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was:
Whether the proviso to Section 372 CrPC permits a victim to maintain a second or successive appeal against an acquittal after the victim has already exercised the statutory right of appeal and the first appellate court has confirmed the acquittal.
The subsidiary questions were:
- Whether the words “any order” in the proviso to Section 372 create a fresh right of appeal against every appellate order confirming an acquittal.
- Whether the victim’s statutory right of appeal stands exhausted after one appeal against the original acquittal.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy supported a second appeal before the High Court.
- Whether the present appeal was maintainable at all before examination of the merits of the underlying road accident prosecution.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the present appeal was maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
His counsel emphasised the statutory language providing a victim with a right to appeal against “any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused.”
The proviso further provides that such appeal lies to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of that Court.
Accordingly, the appellant contended that the Sessions Court’s judgment confirming the acquittal could itself be challenged before the High Court.
Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in:
Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 12 SCC 115.
The appellant sought to use that decision to support the proposition that the statutory rights conferred upon a victim should permit the present appellate challenge.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal.
The accused contended that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants the victim only one statutory right of appeal against an acquittal.
Once the victim has exercised that right by appealing to the competent appellate court, the statutory remedy is exhausted.
The proviso does not contemplate successive appeals against the same acquittal merely because the first appellate court has confirmed it.
The respondent relied upon:
- Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu, (2025) 10 SCC 372;
- Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2026:KER:811; and
- Mahesh v. Gunderao, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 932.
The respondent therefore submitted that the High Court lacked appellate jurisdiction under Section 372 to entertain the deceased’s husband’s second challenge.
Analysis of the Law
Proviso to Section 372 Gives a Victim a Statutory Right of Appeal
The proviso to Section 372 CrPC creates an independent statutory right enabling a victim to appeal against specified adverse orders, including an order acquitting the accused.
However, the question was not whether Talat Shahedi qualified as a victim or whether he initially possessed a right of appeal.
He had already exercised that right by challenging the Magistrate’s acquittal before the Sessions Court.
The crucial question was whether the proviso also created an additional right to challenge the Sessions Court’s confirmation of that acquittal before the High Court.
The Court answered this question in the negative.
No Successive Appeal Against the Same Acquittal
The High Court held that once the competent appellate court has confirmed the Trial Court’s acquittal, the proviso to Section 372 does not confer another statutory appeal upon the victim.
The statutory provision creates a right of appeal against acquittal; it does not establish an unlimited appellate hierarchy allowing successive victim appeals.
In this case:
Magistrate → Acquittal
Victim → Appeal before Sessions Court
Sessions Court → Acquittal confirmed
The victim’s statutory appellate remedy under the proviso to Section 372 had therefore already been exercised.
The Court categorically held:
“There cannot be any second appeal in such circumstances.”
Accordingly, the High Court did not enter into the merits of whether the accused had actually driven rashly or negligently.
Precedent Analysis
1. Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 12 SCC 115
This was the principal Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant.
In Joseph Stephen, the accused had initially been convicted by the Magistrate. The Sessions Court subsequently allowed the accused’s appeal and acquitted them.
The victim approached the High Court in revision, and the High Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction.
The Supreme Court held that Section 401(3) CrPC prohibited the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, from directly converting an acquittal into a conviction.
The Supreme Court explained that where the High Court finds a manifest error while exercising revision, it may remit the matter to the appellate court for rehearing or, in an appropriate case, to the Trial Court for retrial.
It further recognised that a victim possessing a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 cannot ordinarily invoke revision where an appeal was available. The High Court could, however, treat the revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
Why Joseph Stephen Did Not Apply
The Delhi High Court distinguished Joseph Stephen on a crucial factual and procedural basis.
In Joseph Stephen, the relevant appellate acquittal followed an original conviction.
In the present case, by contrast:
- the Trial Court had acquitted the accused;
- the victim exercised his Section 372 right against that acquittal;
- the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal; and
- the acquittal therefore stood confirmed.
The Court held that Joseph Stephen did not recognise a second statutory appeal in such circumstances.
2. Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala
The Delhi High Court specifically referred to the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated 8 January 2026 in Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Others.
That authority supported the proposition that a victim cannot maintain a second appeal once the first appellate court has confirmed the Trial Court’s acquittal.
The Court adopted the same approach in the present case.
3. Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu, (2025) 10 SCC 372
This authority was cited by Respondent No. 1 in support of the proposition that the victim’s statutory right under the proviso to Section 372 cannot be treated as permitting successive appellate challenges.
The judgment records the reliance placed upon Asian Paints, although it does not separately undertake an extensive analysis of the decision.
4. Mahesh v. Gunderao, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 932
The respondent also relied upon this Karnataka High Court decision for the proposition that the proviso to Section 372 confers a right of appeal upon the victim only once, rather than creating multiple successive appellate remedies.
Again, the Delhi High Court records the authority but does not independently analyse it at length.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court treated the issue as one of statutory maintainability rather than factual guilt or innocence.
The original acquittal had already been challenged by the deceased’s husband before the Sessions Court.
Therefore, this was not a case where the victim had been denied the statutory right conferred by Section 372.
Rather, the appellant sought to exercise the same statutory appellate right for a second time after being unsuccessful in his first appeal.
The Court rejected such an interpretation.
It distinguished Joseph Stephen because that case concerned a materially different procedural history involving an original conviction followed by an appellate acquittal and subsequent revision.
Here, the Trial Court itself had acquitted the accused and the competent appellate court had already confirmed that acquittal.
The High Court consequently held that:
“There cannot be any second appeal in such circumstances.”
The appeal therefore failed at the threshold, without requiring reconsideration of the evidence concerning the 2005 road accident.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that a victim’s statutory right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not extend to a second or successive appeal after the first appellate court has already confirmed the Trial Court’s acquittal.
Talat Shahedi had already exercised his statutory remedy by appealing the Magistrate’s acquittal before the Sessions Court.
Once that appeal was dismissed, he could not invoke the proviso to Section 372 again to maintain a second appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Accordingly, the Court held the appeal not maintainable and disposed of it on that basis.
Key Legal Principle
The proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives a victim a statutory right to appeal an acquittal, but not a right to successive appeals. Once the victim’s first appeal against the Trial Court’s acquittal is dismissed and the acquittal is confirmed, a second appeal under the same proviso is not maintainable.
Case Details
Case: Talat Shahedi v. Vibhor Ahluwalia & Another
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.A. 884/2023 with CRL.M.A. 28555/2023; CNR No. DLHC010419562023
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: 20 August 2026; Reserved on 17 August 2026
Result: Appeal held not maintainable and disposed of. The High Court held that no second appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC lies where the victim’s first appeal has already resulted in confirmation of the Trial Court’s acquittal.
