The State cannot file an appeal against the order of acquittal as a 'victim' under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The State can file an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. The Appellate Court's judgment without jurisdiction is considered nonest in law.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 09.01.2017 in C.C.No.239/2014 on the file of the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur and its confirmation judgment and order dated 05.03.2019 in Crl.A.No.69/2017 on the file of the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The respondent herein is the accused before the Trial Court and respondent before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW1 married the respondent Mallesh Naika on 15.12.2007. The couple had a female child aged about 4 years. It is stated in the complaint that, the respondent herein used to consume alcohol everyday and assaulting PW1 without any reason. Even though, the said fact was brought to the notice of the parents of PW1, they were advising PW1 to adjust and live with the respondent. It is stated in the complaint that, on 09.12.2011, at about 9.30 a.m., the respondent has assaulted the mother of PW1 by using machete and thereafter PW1 started residing in her parents' house. Such being the fact, on 19.12.2013, when PW1 was grazing the cattle in the field, the respondent gone to the said field and asked her to restore the matrimonial tie. When PW1 refused to join the company of the respondent, the respondent tried to take away the Mangalasutra by stating that, when she was not interested to stay with him, she need not have Mangalasuthra and took a wooden stick attached to tomato plantation and assaulted indiscriminately. By that time, she was rescued by the neighbouring land's owner. Thereafter, the respondent stated to have threatened her with dire consequences. Being annoyed by the act of the respondent, PW1 lodged a complaint on 20.12.2013 before the jurisdictional police. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR came to be registered against the accused in Crime No.95/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 498A and 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the jurisdictional police have submitted the charge sheet for the above said offences.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 9 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 7 documents at Exhibits P1 to P7 and also marked the M.O.1 wooden stick. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court/Appellate Court, the Appellate Court upheld the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this revision petition seeking to setaside the Order of acquittal.

5. Heard Shri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State and Sri Javeed S., learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned HCGP that, the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly even though there are materials to proceed against the respondent, failed to consider the same. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Courts below are erroneous and the same is unsustainable.

7. It is further stated that, PW1 who is none other than the complainant and the injured, has categorically supported the case and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the respondent, which was not considered by the Trial Court properly. Hence, the learned HCGP prays to setaside the Order of acquittal.

8. It is further submitted that, PW2 being an eye witness to the incident, has supported the case of prosecution. Even though he was subjected to crossexamination, nothing was elicited to discredit the trustworthiness. He has identified