Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Supreme Court of India   •   22 September 2026   •   2026 INSC 1052; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 990
Case Summary
The Supreme Court held that a victim’s appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Sessions Court and not the High Court. The proviso to Section 413 BNSS gives a victim an independent statutory right to appeal against an acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or award of inadequate compensation. Crucially, it directs that such an appeal must be filed before the court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie against a conviction passed by the same trial court. Since Section 415(3) BNSS provides that an appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class lies to the Court of Session, a victim challenging an acquittal by such Magistrate must likewise approach the Sessions Court. The Court further clarified that Section 419 BNSS, which separately regulates appeals against acquittal in the circumstances specified therein, does not determine the forum when the victim exercises the specific right conferred by the proviso to Section 413.
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Area of Law: Criminal Procedure / BNSS — Victim’s Right of Appeal, Appeal Against Acquittal, Sections 413, 415(3) & 419 BNSS
Citation: 2026 INSC 1052; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 990
Date: 22 September 2026

Legal Issue

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether a victim’s appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate lies before the High Court or before the Sessions Court under the BNSS, 2023.

The Court was required to interpret the relationship between:
- Section 413 BNSS — general bar on appeals except as provided by the Sanhita and the proviso conferring a specific right of appeal upon victims;
- Section 415(3) BNSS — appellate forum for convictions by Magistrates; and
- Section 419 BNSS — statutory provisions governing appeals against acquittal in the circumstances specified therein.

A secondary issue was whether the High Court could reject the appeal as non-maintainable at the final hearing stage when an earlier Single Judge had already admitted it.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Subhas Chandra Sarkar, was the father of a person who was suffering from depressive disorders and had been admitted to a hospital. His son subsequently died by suicide while in the hospital.

The petitioner attributed his son's death to negligence on the part of a doctor and a nurse. An FIR was registered alleging an offence under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 304A was a bailable offence.

The matter was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, who ultimately acquitted the accused. As the victim's father, the petitioner challenged the acquittal before the Calcutta High Court.

Although the matter had earlier been admitted by a Single Judge, when it subsequently came up for final hearing, another Single Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and granted liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, contending that his appeal against the Magistrate's order of acquittal was maintainable before the High Court.

Held / Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and rejected the Special Leave Petition.

The Court held that the forum for a victim's appeal must be determined directly from the proviso to Section 413 BNSS. That proviso gives a victim the right to appeal against an order acquitting the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation. It further provides that the appeal shall lie before the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against an order of conviction passed by that court.

Under Section 415(3) BNSS, where a person is convicted following a trial by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class, the appeal lies before the Court of Session. Accordingly, a Magistrate's conviction is appealable to the Sessions Court, and therefore a victim's appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal under Section 413 must likewise lie to the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court consequently held that the petitioner's appeal had correctly been rejected as non-maintainable before the High Court. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court. If the appeal was filed within one month from the Supreme Court's order, it was directed to be admitted and heard on merits without rejecting it for the delay caused by the petitioner's bona fide proceedings before the wrong forum.

Important Observations

1. Section 413 Gives the Victim an Independent Right of Appeal: The proviso to Section 413 BNSS expressly confers upon a victim the right to appeal against an acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation. The victim's appellate right must therefore be examined under this specific statutory provision.

2. Forum Follows the Appellate Forum Against Conviction: The proviso to Section 413 itself provides the mechanism for identifying the appropriate appellate court. A victim's appeal lies before the same court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie against a conviction passed by the trial court concerned.

3. Magistrate's Acquittal → Victim Must Approach Sessions Court: Under Section 415(3) BNSS, a conviction following a trial by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class is appealable to the Court of Session. Consequently, where that Magistrate acquits the accused, the victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 413 must also be filed before the Sessions Court.

4. Section 419 Does Not Govern a Victim's Section 413 Appeal: The Court distinguished Section 419 BNSS, which deals with appeals against acquittal in the situations contemplated by that provision, from the specific statutory right conferred upon a victim by the proviso to Section 413. When the victim is exercising the right under the proviso to Section 413, the appellate forum is determined by that proviso read with Section 415, rather than by Section 419.

5. Nature of the Offence Does Not Alter This Forum Rule: The underlying allegation in the present case involved Section 304A IPC, a bailable offence. Nevertheless, for a victim exercising the statutory right under Section 413, the controlling question is the court to which an appeal against a conviction by that Magistrate would ordinarily lie. Accordingly, the victim's appeal lies to the Sessions Court.

6. Earlier Admission Does Not Cure Lack of Maintainability: The Supreme Court rejected the contention that because one Single Judge of the High Court had earlier admitted the matter, another Single Judge could not subsequently reject it as non-maintainable. At the final hearing, the High Court was entitled to examine the statutory maintainability of the appeal and reject it upon finding that the proper appellate forum was the Sessions Court.

7. Bona Fide Proceedings in the Wrong Forum Protected: Although the Supreme Court rejected the SLP, it protected the petitioner's substantive appellate remedy. The petitioner was permitted to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court within one month, and the Court directed that such appeal be admitted and heard on merits without treating the delay caused by the bona fide proceedings before the wrong forum as a bar.

Full Headnote

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 413, 415(3) and 419 — Victim's Right of Appeal — Appeal Against Acquittal — Magistrate — Appropriate Appellate Forum

Supreme Court considered whether a victim challenging an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate must approach the High Court or the Sessions Court.

Section 413 — Proviso — Victim's Appeal

Proviso to Section 413 confers upon a victim a statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Such appeal must lie before the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against an order of conviction passed by the same trial court.

Section 415(3) — Conviction by Magistrate

Section 415(3) provides that a person convicted following a trial by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class may appeal to the Court of Session. Consequently, applying the forum rule contained in the proviso to Section 413, a victim's appeal against an acquittal by such Magistrate must likewise be preferred before the Sessions Court.

Section 419 — Distinction

Section 419, dealing separately with appeals against acquittal in the circumstances specified therein, does not govern the forum when a victim exercises the specific appellate right under the proviso to Section 413. In such a case, Section 413 read with Section 415(3) determines the competent appellate court.

Maintainability — Prior Admission by High Court

Mere admission of an appeal by an earlier Single Judge does not prevent another Single Judge, at the stage of final hearing, from examining its statutory maintainability and rejecting it where the appeal has been instituted before the wrong forum.

Facts

Petitioner's son died by suicide after being admitted to a hospital. Petitioner alleged negligence against a doctor and nurse, resulting in registration of an FIR under Sections 304A/34 IPC. Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore acquitted the accused. Victim's appeal before the High Court was rejected as non-maintainable with liberty to approach the Sessions Court.

Held

High Court's order upheld. A victim's appeal against an acquittal by a Magistrate lies before the Sessions Court, being the court to which an appeal against conviction by that Magistrate would ordinarily lie under Section 415(3) BNSS.

SLP rejected. Petitioner granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court. If the appeal was filed within one month from the Supreme Court's order, it was directed to be admitted and heard on merits without considering the delay attributable to the bona fide proceedings pursued before the wrong forum. Supreme Court expressly made no observation on the merits of the acquittal.

Legal Significance

The decision provides important clarity on the new appellate architecture under the BNSS, 2023, particularly by distinguishing a victim's statutory appeal under Section 413 from other appeals against acquittal governed by Section 419.

The practical rule emerging from the judgment is straightforward: if the trial court is a Magistrate and an appeal against its conviction would ordinarily lie to the Sessions Court under Section 415(3), a victim challenging an acquittal by that Magistrate must also approach the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 413.

The ruling is particularly useful for criminal practitioners because choosing the wrong appellate forum can result in a maintainability objection even after the proceeding has previously been admitted. At the same time, the Court's treatment of the petitioner's bona fide litigation demonstrates that procedural forum errors need not necessarily extinguish the underlying statutory right of appeal.

View Original Judgment
Disclaimer: This case summary and headnote are provided for informational and educational purposes. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the complete text and authoritative legal position.