Magistrate Acquits Accused: Where Should the Victim Appeal?

In Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 INSC 1052, the Supreme Court held that the victim’s appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal belonged before the Sessions Court, not the High Court. The order was passed on 22 September 2026 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran in SLP (Crl.) No. 3418 of 2026.

Brief facts

Sarkar’s son died by suicide while admitted to a hospital for depressive disorders. The father alleged negligence by a doctor and nurse. After the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore acquitted the accused, he approached the High Court. The High Court rejected the appeal as filed before the wrong court, while allowing him to approach the Sessions Court. He challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. [Source 1, paragraphs 3 and 9]

The petitioner’s arguments

Sarkar argued that, because a judge had already admitted the matter, another judge of the same court could not later reject it as not maintainable. The amicus assisting him also relied on the distinction between appeals involving cognizable and non-bailable offences and other acquittal appeals. The Supreme Court considered these arguments but held that the victim’s specific appeal provision governed the case. [Source 1, paragraphs 4–8 and 10–12]

The respondents’ position

The order records that the Court heard counsel for the State and the other respondents. It does not separately set out their detailed arguments; it would therefore be inaccurate to attribute additional submissions to them. [Source 1, paragraph 2]

What the Supreme Court held

The key provision was the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It gives a victim a right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. It also identifies the correct court: the appeal goes to the court that would ordinarily hear an appeal against a conviction by the same trial court. [Source 1, paragraphs 10–11; Source 2, Section 413]

Section 415(3) BNSS, subject to subsection (2), provides for an appeal to the Sessions Court against a conviction following trial by a first-class or second-class Magistrate. Applying that rule, the Supreme Court held that Sarkar’s appeal against the Magistrate’s acquittal also had to go to the Sessions Court. Put simply, for this victim’s appeal, the route was identified by asking where an appeal against that Magistrate’s conviction would ordinarily go. [Source 1, paragraphs 11–12; Source 2, Section 415]

The Court distinguished this victim-specific route from Section 419 BNSS, which separately deals with acquittal appeals, including government-directed appeals. The provisions could not be treated as interchangeable merely because each concerned an acquittal. [Source 1, paragraphs 8 and 10–12; Source 2, Section 419]

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that earlier admission prevented the High Court from examining maintainability at the final hearing. Admission had not finally settled whether the High Court was the correct appellate forum. [Source 1, paragraphs 4–5]

What relief did the father receive?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and rejected the special leave petition. However, it protected Sarkar against losing his appeal because he had pursued the wrong forum in good faith. If he filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within one month from 22 September 2026, it was to be admitted and heard on merits without the delay caused by those bona fide proceedings defeating it. [Source 1, paragraphs 13–15]

The Supreme Court did not reverse the acquittal or decide whether the doctor and nurse were guilty. It expressly left the merits to be considered in accordance with law. The one-month protection was a direction in this particular case, not a general limitation period for every victim’s appeal. [Source 1, paragraphs 13–14]

Summary conclusion

A victim challenging a Magistrate’s acquittal must identify the correct appeal route before filing. In Sarkar’s case, Sections 413 and 415(3) BNSS pointed to the Sessions Court. The decision settled where his appeal should be heard; it did not decide whether the acquittal itself was right or wrong.

Sources

1. Supreme Court of India, Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 INSC 1052, SLP (Crl.) No. 3418 of 2026, order dated 22 September 2026, paragraphs 1–16: https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=75762026&from=latest_judgements_order&order_date=2026-09-22&type=j

2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 413, 415 and 419, NCRB statutory text: https://cytrain.ncrb.gov.in/staticpage/web_pages/ChaptersBNSS.html

This article provides general legal information and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular case.

© C&C Law Chambers. All rights reserved.

#IndianLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalAwareness