JUDGMENT :

MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

1. No one is present either for the applicant or for respondents no. 2 to 6 when this case is taken up for hearing. Learned A.G.A. is however present for the State.

2. Instant appeal has been filed by the victim under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar whereby the trial Court has convicted the private respondents under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, however, the accused persons/private respondents instead of sentencing to undergo imprisonment were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on probation and also against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the state against sentence was dismissed.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the instant appeal has been listed after a long time as it was on 04.12.2017 this appeal was last listed and vide order dated 20.11.2017 the delay, which had occurred in preferring the appeal has been condoned by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the appeal was directed to be listed for admission.

4. Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. under which the instant appeal has been preferred, is reproduced for ready reference as under:

“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.”

5. Perusal of this Section would reveal that the same is starting with a Non-Obstante Clause declaring that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Thus, it is clear that the appeal could only be preferred in accordance with the scheme provided in the Cr.P.C. or provided by any other law for the time being in force. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides a right to the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal and it says that the victim (as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C. may prefer an appeal against any judgment or order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Thus, the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. could only be filed on the happening of three situations namely:

(i) When the accused persons have been acquitted.

(ii) When the accused persons have been convicted for a lesser offence.

(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Courts.

6. The instant appeal has been preferred by the victim against the order of the trial court as well as of the first Appellate Court and it is evident that though the accused persons were convicted by the trial Court for the offence committed under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, however, instead of sentencing them to undergo imprisonment the trial Court has given them benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released them on probation and the appeal preferred by the state against sentencing has also been dismissed by the appellate Court.

7. The issue as to whether a victim of the crime may prefer an appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. against inadequacy of sentence awarded to the accused persons is now no more res integra. Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi, (2010) 12 SCC 599 has held as under:

“11. An appeal is a creature of a statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to appeal under the discretionary p