Rubi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:11366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (SJ) No. 19 of 2026

Rubi Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of Santosh Narayan Shahi, resident of Sainik Colony, Dumardaga, Sugnu, P.O. Sugnu, P.S. Khelgalon (Sadar), District Ranchi (Jharkhand) …....... Appellant(s)

¶4

Vrs.

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Mukesh Kumar, son of Krishna Murat Sharma, resident of Jojo Basa Colony, River View, Hatia, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

........ Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey No.2, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

¶9

02/18.04.2026

¶10

I.A. No.3420 of 2026 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XXIX, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 6943 of 2020, in terms of Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023.

¶11

Since the complainant is the victim and as such no leave to appeal is required in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) SCC 752 . Paragraph Nos.34, 35 & 76 of the said judgment are relevant which are quoted herein-below: -

¶12

“34. On the third question, the Full Bench noted that if the victim restricts the appeal to the grievance to inadequacy of the compensation or punishment for a lesser offence, it does not become an appeal against acquittal but the appeal is really directed against “any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal” within the meaning of Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thus, no question of taking special leave arises. The Full Bench took the view that for the purposes of Section 378(4) CrPC a victim who is not a complainant will not come within the purview of that section and would not be required to take recourse to the provision of special leave as provided therein. It was held : (Bhavuben Dineshbhai case, SCC OnLine Guj para 33)

¶13

“33. Therefore, in the case before us, the legislature while conferring the right of appeal upon the victim, who is not a complainant, not having imposed any condition of taking leave or special leave, we cannot infer such condition and impose the same upon the victim, although, the legislature was quite conscious of existence of such has retained that provision without consequential amendment thereby

¶14

Acquittal Appeal No. 19 of 2026

¶15

1

¶16

2026:JHHC:11366

¶17

making its intention clear that the provision of special leave is not applicable to an appeal preferred by a victim against acquittal if he is not the complainant.”

¶18

The third question was then answered in the following words: (SCC OnLine Guj para 36

¶19

“36. … If the victim also happens to be the complainant and the appeal is against acquittal, he is required to take leave as provided in Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code but if he is not the complainant, he is not required to apply for or obtain any leave. For the appeal against inadequacy of compensation or punishment on a lesser offence, no leave is necessary at the instance of a victim, whether he is the complainant or not.”

¶20

35. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court made an artificial and unnecessary distinction between a victim as a victim and a victim as a complainant in respect of filing an appeal against an order of acquittal. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not introduce or incorporate any such distinction.

¶21

76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned, once again we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) CrPC. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined in Section 2(d) CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC is concerned.”

¶22

Further the appeal will lie before the next appellate authority of the Civil Court i.e., the Sessions Judge since it is a Magisterial order.

¶23

In that view of the matter, the present acquittal appeal is disposed of by giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. i.e., Learned Sessions Judge of the concerned Civil Court.

¶24