Advocates:
['ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA', 'RAHUL KAMWAR', '', 'RUDRAKSH SHARMA', 'ABHISAR BHANU']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

D. B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 61 / 2017

Ramvati Wife of Lt. Sh. Babu Lal by caste Gurjar, aged 45 Years,

r/o Aloy, Police Station Dhana Khedli Tehsil Roopwas, Distt.

Bharatpur.

----Complainant-Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

Respondent

2. Ram Prasad Son of Dhanpal by caste Gurjar, r/o Barahana

Police Station Surmathura, Distt. Dholpur.

3. Jaggo alias Jagdish S/o Amar Singh b/c Gurjar, r/o Nidhara,

Police Station Badi, Distt. Dholpur

4. Dataram Son of Tundaram b/c Gurjar, r/o Chandelipura, Police

Station Basai Dang, Distt. Dholpur.

5. Amar Singh alias Mohar Singh S/o Jagan Singh b/c Gurjar, r/o

Village Mohari, Police Station Basedi, Distt. Dholpur.

6. Jagan Son of Shivcharan b/c Gurjar, r/o Bhabutipura Police

Station Basai Dang, Distt. Dholpur.

----Accused-respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta with Ms. Sakshi Swami.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.S. Raghav, Public Prosecutor.

_____________________________________________________

REPORTABLE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

Order

03/03/2017

This D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred

by the complainant against the judgment dated 24.12.2016

passed by the Special Judge(Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur

whereby the accused-respondents no. 2 to 6 have been acquitted

of the charges for offences under Sections 148, 353/149,

(2 of 7)

[CRLLA-61/2017]

307/149, 302/149 IPC and Section 9 and 11 of R.D.A Act.

Respondent No. 2 has also been acquitted of charge under Section

216-A IPC and Section 5/27 and 30 of Arms Act. Moreover,

Respondent No. 6 has also been acquitted of charge under Section

216-A IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

The complainant by this application filed with reference

to proviso to Section 372 read with Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has

sought leave of this Court to file appeal against the aforesaid

judgment and consequential reversal of findings of acquittal

recorded by the trial court and for conviction of the accused-

respondents.

During scrutiny of the matter, Stamp Report of the

Registry made the following report:

“It is within time.

Defects:

(1) Present D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal has been

filed against the order of acquittal of

accused/respondents dated 24.12.2016 passed by

Special Judge(DAA) Dholpur. As per proviso of 372

Cr.P.C., this D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal seems

not proper.

(2) Status of appellant is not mentioned.

(3) Court fees of Rs. 3/- is deficit on appeal.”

The complainant has removed Defect No. 2 and 3

pointed out by the Registry, but with regard to Defect No. 1 that

as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the complainant was

required to file appeal rather than filing leave to appeal, learned

counsel for the complainant submitted that this question has been

authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court in Satya Pal

Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2015) 15

(3 of 7)

[CRLLA-61/2017]

SCC 613 that complainant cannot straightway file appeal against

the judgment of acquittal and he has to seek leave of the Court.

If he wishes to challenge the acquittal of the accused under

proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., he can do so only after obtaining

leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.

Perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that

Madhya Pradesh High Court in that case had dealt with the appeal

filed by the victim against the acquittal of accused therein without

requiring him to obtain leave of the Court. Though, eventually

appeal was dismissed on merits, but the complainant challenged

that judgment before the Supreme Court by filing special leave

petition. The Supreme Court while granting leave, treated the

same as appeal against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High

Court. Reliance on behalf of the a