The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Nutan Sharma, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6.

3. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

4. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the informant for setting aside the judgement dated 23.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge at Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2011 dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the State. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the judgement dated 18.01.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro, whereby the present opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted for offence under Sections 498A and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 31/2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 219 of 2007 (T.R. No. 587/2011).

5. The Criminal Appeal No. 21/2011 was filed by the State against the judgement dated 18.01.2011 whereby the learned trial court had acquitted the present opposite party nos. 2 to 6 of the charges levelled against them.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, at the outset, have submitted that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the maintainability of the present revision application is required to be decided.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 while advancing their arguments has submitted that the case arises out of an F.I.R. and the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted by the learned trial court. Against the order of acquittal, the State had filed an appeal before the learned appellate court, but the so-called victim, who is petitioner before this case, never filed any appeal against the judgement of acquittal. He submits that there is a provision for filing an appeal by the victim against the judgement of acquittal and the appeal lies before the same court before whom the appeal against conviction lies. He further submits that in view of this position, the appeal of the petitioner against the trial court’s judgement of acquittal could be filed before the learned appellate court and the revision is not maintainable. He has further submitted that as the petitioner did not file appeal against the judgement of acquittal, therefore she has no locus to challenge the other impugned judgement confirming the acquittal of the accused in an appeal filed by the State. However, he has addressed this court on the merits of the case as well.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, has submitted that merely because the petitioner, being the victim, did not file her independent appeal before the appellate court, the same will not preclude this Court from exercising the powers of revision. He submits that the victim was pursuing her case through the State and did not file her independent appeal. He has also submitted that in case, this Court finds that the present petition is not maintainable, then it may be observed by this Court regarding appropriate remedy which may be available to the petitioner against the order of acquittal of the accused. He has also submitted that the petitioner should be in a position to challenge the appellate order passed by the learned court below in the appeal filed by the State as well as the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court.

9. On the merits of the case, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court is perverse and fit to be interfered with. He submits that the petitioner was subjected to acute mental cruelty. He submits that the petitioner came back from her matrimonial house after a period of one week from the date of her marriage and had undertaken further study at the instance of her in-laws and when she finished her further study, she was not permitted to enter her matrimonial house. He submits that the petit