The victim has an absolute right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 Cr.PC, without the need for special leave.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/Meera Devi (Informant) against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Naugachia in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2018, whereby Criminal Appeal filed by the O.P. No.2/Raghvendra Kumar Sahu has been allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2018 passed by Shri Rahul Kumar, learned A.C.J.M-III, Naugachia in G.R. Case No. 559 of 2004 corresponding to Parbatta P.S. Case No. 258 of 2004, whereby Raghvendra Kumar Sahu was found guilty under Sections 448 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and was sentenced accordingly.

Factual Background

2. The factual background of the case is that on the basis of the fardbeyan of one of the victims, namely, Meera Devi, who is petitioner herein, Parbatta P.S. Case No. 258 of 2004 was registered on 14.08.2004 against Raghvendra Kumar Sahu (O.P. No.2 herein).

3. Subsequent to the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charge was framed under Sections 448 , 323, 341 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and thereafter, trial commenced and during the trial, the sole accused Raghvendra Kumar Sahu was found guilty by learned magistrarial court under Sections 448 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE but he was acquitted of charges framed under Sections 341 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. Subsequently, said Raghvendra Kumar Sahu preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No. 75 of 2018 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2018. The same appeal was allowed acquitting him of all the charges and hence, the victim/informant-Meera Devi, being aggrieved has preferred the present revision petition against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Appellate court below.

Submissions of the parties

5. However, during hearing of the revision petition, preliminary objection has been raised by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 that present criminal revision petition is not maintainable.

6. They submit that in view of the Proviso to Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.PC, the petitioner should have filed Criminal Appeal after obtaining Leave of this Court. They further submit that the present Criminal Revision is hit by Section 401 (4) Cr.PC.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the acquittal of O.P. No.2 by lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2018, the petitioner/informant/victim has rightly filed the present Criminal Revision, because the impugned judgment is already passed by the Lower Appellate Court and no further appeal could lie against the Appellate judgment. Under such circumstances, only remedy left with the victim/petitioner herein was to file Criminal Revision against the impugned judgment.

Consideration

8. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record.

The question involved

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the question is what is the legal remedy to the victim/petitioner herein against the Appellate judgment of acquittal – whether the petitioner has rightly filed Criminal Revision or she should have filed Criminal Appeal with or without Leave of this Court.

Legal provisions

10. Criminal Appeal in case of acquittal is provided under Section 378 Cr.PC, which reads as follows:

“ Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Appeal in case of