The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a limited right of appeal upon a victim, which does not include the right to seek enhancement of a sentence; such power is exclusively vested in the State under Section 377 of the Code.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the injured/complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter ‘CrPC’) assailing the order on sentence dated 24th February, 2015 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 94/2014 arising out of FIR No. 490/2011, Police Station Jamia Nagar, whereby the Respondent No.- 2 /Accused, though convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Peanl Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’), has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years along with fine.

2. The grievance of the Appellant/complainant in the present appeal is limited to the quantum of sentence. It is the case of the Appellant/complainant that the sentence awarded by the ld. Trial Court is grossly inadequate, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, and not in consonance with the settled principles governing sentencing under Section 307 IPC.

3. It is pertinent to note that the present appeal arises out of the same Impugned Order of conviction and order on sentence which were the subject matter of challenge in the connected appeal being CRL.A. 316/2015, titled Asad Arif v. State (NCT OF DELHI), filed by the accused. While the earlier appeal pertained to the correctness of conviction, the present appeal concerns itself solely with the question of adequacy of sentence.

4. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the factual matrix of the present appeal is being recorded in terms identical to the connected matter being CRL.A. 316/2015 titled Asad Arif v. State (NCT OF DELHI), inasmuch as the incident, evidence, and findings remain the same. The only distinction between the two appeals lies in the scope of adjudication, while one is against the conviction, the present appeal pertains to enhancement of sentence.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 19th September 2011, at about 12:02 a.m., information was received at Police Station Jamia Nagar regarding admission of one Ms. Muskan in Holy Family Hospital in an injured condition. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 3A and entrusted to the Investigating Officer for necessary action. The Investigating Officer, along with accompanying police officials, proceeded to the hospital and collected the Medico-Legal Certificate of the injured.

6. As per the statement of the injured PW- 4 Ms. Muskan, the incident is stated to have occurred on the night of 18th September 2011 at about 10:45 p.m., when she had gone to the back room of her residence to take water from the refrigerator. At that time, the Appellant/complainant, who was known to her as a neighbor, was allegedly standing outside the window opening. It is alleged that upon seeing her, the Appellant/complainant threatened her, stating that since she had refused his proposal of marriage, he would not spare her, and immediately thereafter fired a shot at her through the window. The bullet struck the upper portion of her thigh, resulting in profuse bleeding. Thereafter, the Appellant/complainant is stated to have fled from the spot. The relevant portion of the complaint dated 19th September, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:

“बया