In a detailed ruling that clarifies how far a crime victim can go in challenging an acquittal, the Kerala High Court has held that a victim cannot file a second criminal appeal after losing once before the Sessions Court. The judgment draws a clear boundary on appeal rights under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing a criminal leave petition, observed that the law grants only one statutory right of appeal to a victim against an order of acquittal.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Gopala Krishnan, the defacto complainant in a money-related criminal case registered in Wayanad. The accused had faced allegations of cheating, offences under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, and violations under the Chit Funds Act.
In 2022, the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sulthan Bathery acquitted the accused. Dissatisfied, the complainant exercised his statutory right and appealed before the Sessions Court at Kalpetta. That appeal was dismissed in July 2025, affirming the acquittal.
Undeterred, the complainant approached the High Court seeking leave to file yet another appeal under Section 419(4) of the BNSS. The court registry flagged this as a defect, noting that a second appeal by the same appellant was not maintainable. The issue was then placed before the High Court for a final determination.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The central question was straightforward but significant:
Can a victim who has already appealed against an acquittal before the Sessions Court file another appeal before the High Court after losing the first one?
The petitioner argued that Sections 413 and 419 of the BNSS together allowed a victim to challenge any order of acquittal, including one passed by an appellate court.
Given the importance of the issue, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Upholds Tribunal Order on Compassionate Appointment of Adopted Son in Railway Case
Court’s Observations
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas began by reaffirming that a victim does have a statutory right of appeal under the BNSS. However, he was clear that there is no inherent or unlimited right to appeal.
“The right of appeal is a creation of statute,” the bench observed, adding that once the statute defines the forum and scope, courts cannot expand it through interpretation.
The court explained that Section 413 of the BNSS grants a victim the right to appeal only once, and that too to the forum where an appeal against conviction would ordinarily lie. The wording, the judge noted, refers to a “right to prefer an appeal” - not multiple appeals.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument, the bench said allowing repeated appeals would effectively create a second appeal, which criminal law does not permit.
Read also:- Education Can’t Cancel a Wife’s Right to Maintenance: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order
“The same party cannot prefer another appeal as a second appeal after the appellate remedy has already been exhausted,” the court observed.
Important Distinction Highlighted
The judgment carefully drew a distinction between two situations:
- If a trial court acquits the accused, the victim has a right to appeal once.
- If a trial court convicts, but the appellate court later acquits the accused, the victim may then appeal, as that would be the first order of acquittal.
In the present case, the accused had already been acquitted by the trial court, and that acquittal had been confirmed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, no further appeal was legally permissible.
Read also:- 'No Locus, No Relief': Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Writ Alleging Illegal Sand Mining
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the objection raised by the registry and dismissed the criminal leave petition as not maintainable. It directed that the certified copy of the Sessions Court judgment be returned to the petitioner.
Taking a balanced approach, the court ordered that the time spent pursuing the leave petition would be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
Before concluding, the bench recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by the amicus curiae.
With this, the legal proceedings reached their end.
Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: Unnumbered Crl.L.P. (Filing No. 366 of 2025)
