The right to appeal against the sentence will not be available to the victim in view of the specific provisions of the statute and the Supreme Court's observations in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

MILIND N.JADHAV, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No.467 of 2022 is filed by the Appellant to challenge the impugned judgment dtd. 4/4/2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No.8 of 2011 convicting the Appellant for the following offences:

(i) Under sec. 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months;

(ii) under sec. 382 IPC the Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous important for six months;

(iii) punishable under sec. 417 IPC the Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month;

(iv) punishable under sec. 448 IPC the Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month;

(v) punishable under sec. 506 IPC the Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. Criminal Appeal No.669 of 2015 is filed by the victim / original complainant for the following relief:-

"b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suitably enhance the sentence of accused passed by Judgment and Order dtd. 04/04/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag in Sessions Case No.8 of 2011 and kindly may be given the maximum punishment to the Respondent No.1 in all the charges leveled against him."

3. By this common judgment, both the Appeals are disposed of. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as "accused" and "complainant".

4. It is seen that by the impugned judgment accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 328, 382, 417, 448 and 506 IPC and has been acquitted by the Trial court for offences committed under Sec. 504, 509, 647 and 471 IPC. Though the only relief prayed for in the appeal filed by the complainant is for seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused, the pleadings also impugn the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sec. 504, 509, 647 and 471 IPC. In short, the question that arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the complainant before this Court is whether this Court can consider the plea in view of the provisions of sec. 372 Cr.P.C.

4.1. Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. reads thus:-

"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:

[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting, for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.]"

4.2. It is seen that under the provisions of sec. 377, power is given to the State Government to prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence. However correspondingly no such power is given to the victim / complainant to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. Hence the question would be the maintainability of the appeal filed by the victim / complainant to be decided.

5. Before we advert to the legal submissions, it will be apposite to refer to such of the relevant facts which are necessary to adjudicate both the appeals filed by the parties.

6. The case of the prosecution is as under:-

(i) that on 3/10/2010, father of the complainant a resident of Gaziyabad (Uttar Pradesh) published advertisement for search of bride-groom in the 'Times of India '; Renu Sharm