(June, 2021)
Abstract - The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was amended in 2009 to confer upon victims the right to prefer appeal. This was done in pursuance of recommendations made by several high-level Committees on reforms in criminal law and in wake of an increasing focus on victimology. While the introduction of this right had become necessary for enabling victims to pursue justice independent of the State’s reluctance, the absence of any requirement of leave for appeal has given rise to a substantial controversy. Whether there was any legislative intent in doing away with this requirement wasn’t clear, but the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagalli v. State of Karnataka put to rest all confusion when it directed that the requirement of leave for appeal to be preferred by a victim is not necessary. This paper undertakes comprehensive research on the relevant developments in criminal law that led up to the 2009 Amendment and traces the judicial history of cases concerning questions on the applicability and procedural aspects of this new right. The researcher argues that the Mallikarjun Kodagalli verdict, although liberal in interpretation, ends up tilting the scales of justice in favour of the victim rather than balancing it with the accused.