Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7874 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Opp. ... on 19 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Rev. No. 1456 of 2023
                              ------

Pawan Kumar Yadav @ Pawan Yadav ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Opp. Parties

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP (through V.C.) For the O.P. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate

------

12/Dated: 19 December, 2025 th

I.A. No. 4885 of 2024:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay

of 141 days, which has occurred in preferring this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents.

3. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-

respondents and considering the statements made in the delay

condonation application, is of the view that the petitioner was

prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this criminal revision

within time.

4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of

141 days in preferring this criminal revision is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 16584 of 2025:

5. In pursuance to the order dated 27th November 2025, the instant

interlocutory application has been filed to sought leave of this Court

to allow amendment/addition in Para 1, prayer portion & aggrieved

portion of the criminal revision petition by invoking the jurisdiction

conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.

6. Before considering the content of the present interlocutory

application, it needs to refer herein that the State and opposite party

Nos. 2 & 3 has already put their appearance being represented by

the learned counsel.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

due to inadvertence, there is some anomaly in Para-1 and prayer

portion of the revision application, as such, the instant interlocutory

application has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the State as well as for the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 have

jointly submitted that the instant interlocutory application may be

allowed, since, there is no new thing sought to be inserted in the

revision.

9. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the parties, prayer made in the interlocutory

application is allowed.

10. Let the necessary amendment be carried out in the fresh file.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that within 2

weeks, the same will be filed.

12. Let the interlocutory application be made part of the revision

application.

Cr. Rev. No. 1456 of 2023:

13. We have already made an observation at Para 5 of the order dated

27th November, 2025 that the issue of maintainability will be

considered. Therefore, we have proceeded to consider the issue of

maintainability.

14. The issue of maintainability has been raised in the backdrop of the

fact that the appeal to lie in pursuance to the provision as contained

under the provision of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.).

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal

will not lie in pursuance to the provision as provided under the

proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., reason being that the prayer made

in the instant revision application to which, the petitioner is

aggrieved connected with the inadequate quantum of sentence,

since, the learned Court, without taking into consideration the

gravity of culpability which has been proved on the basis of the

cogent evidence led before the trial court, has inflicted lesser

punishment to accused persons.

16. It has further been contended that only the revision will lie and as

such, the revision has been filed by invoking the jurisdiction

conferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

17. It has also contended by referring the provision of proviso to Section

372 of Cr.P.C. that wherein the appeal will be preferred in three

eventualities, i.e., (i) an appeal against any order passed by the

Court acquitting the accused or (ii) convicting for a lesser offence or

(iii) imposing an inadequate compensation.

18. The subject-matter of the revision is not against the judgment of

acquittal or against the conviction for lesser offence or imposing an

inadequate compensation, rather the case here is for enhancement

of sentence.

19. Learned counsel for the State and O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 has not disputed

the argument what has been advanced by the learned counsel on

behalf of the petitioner.

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

21. Although, the learned counsel the State and O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 has not

disputed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, but herein the issue of maintainability is the subject-

matter and as such, this Court needs to answer the aforesaid issue.

22. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with

"Appeals" and Section 372 makes it clear that no appeal to lie unless

otherwise provided by the Code or any other law for the time being

in force. It is not in dispute that in the instant case appellant has

preferred appeal only under Section 372 CrPC. The proviso is

inserted to Section 372 CrPC by Act 5 of 2009. Section 372 and the

proviso which is subsequently inserted read 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 by any other law for the time being in force:

1 [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.]"

23. In the facts of the present case, it is evident from the aforesaid

provision that the victim has conferred with the right to prefer an

appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused

or convicting for lesser offence or imposing inadequate

compensations.

24. In either of three eventualities, the appeal will lie before the

appellate forum in pursuance of the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

25. Further it is evident from reading of the proviso who makes it clear

that so far as victim's right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted

to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of

the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate

compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer

appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at

the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for

questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section

377 CrPC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal

for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State

Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section

377 CrPC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under

Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly

well-settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the statute.

Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure or

by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking

enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is

maintainable.

26. We, after going through the factual aspect and the prayer made in

the instant revision application, has found that it is not a case of the

acquittal of the accused or it is also not a case where inadequate

compensation has been awarded, rather it is a case where the

sentence has not been found to be, as per the petitioner,

commensurate to the gravity of the offence, therefore, the prayer

has been made in the revision for enhancement of the sentence.

Thus, the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. will not be applicable in the

facts of the present case.

27. This Court is now proceeding to consider as to whether the revision

as provided under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

will lie or not for which the provision of Section 397 and Section

401 of Cr.P.C. needs to refer herein, which reads as under:

397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.--(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or

order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

401. High Court's powers of revision.--(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction.

(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

28. The provision of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. confers power upon the

revisional court that in the High Court or any Sessions Judge may

call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any

inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for

the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality

or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed,

and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court,

and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of

any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in

confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending

the examination of the record.

29. The High Court's power has been provided under Section 401

wherein the High Court has conferred with the power that in the

case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by

itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court

may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a

Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of Cr.P.C. or on a

Court of Session by section 307 of Cr.P.C., and, when the Judges

composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the

case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392 of

Cr.P.C.

30. It is thus evident that the provision of Section 401 is to be exercised

by the High Court in pursuance of the power conferred under

Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of Cr.P.C.

31. Further, it is evident that provision of Section 397 read with Section

401of Cr.P.C., the forum has been carved out and as such, the forum

is to exercise the power as conferred upon it either provided under

Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of Cr.P.C.

32. For ready reference, Section 386 of Cr.P.C. is being referred herein

below which reads as:

"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.--After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public

Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may--

(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;

(b) in an appeal from a conviction--

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same--

(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence--

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or

(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or, the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;

(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order;

(e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper:

Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement:

Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under appeal."

33. We have considered the provision of Section 386 of Cr.P.C. wherein

the powers of the appellate court has been referred and one of the

power has been given in addition thereof, the another power that is

to consider in an appeal for enhancement of sentence and while

doing so, the High Court under the aforesaid conferment of power

can (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the

accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the

offence, or (ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or (iii)

with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent,

or, the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce

the same.

34. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, here the present

grievance of the petitioner is that the sentence is not in

commensurate with the gravity of the offence, as has been proved in

course of the trial. Therefore, the present revision application has

been filed.

35. This Court, keeping the fact into consideration, is of the view that

such power is to be exercised on the basis of conferment of the

power as provided under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. pari materia to

Section 427 of B.N.S.S.

36. The grievance of the petitioner is to be looked into in a forum under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

37. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is hereby maintainable.

38. As the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 has already appeared, the learned counsel has

sought time for filing response.

39. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

40. Admit.

41. Call for the Trial Court Records.

42. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 has submitted

that appeals being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 518 of 2025, Cr. Appeal (SJ)

No. 249 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 152 of 2023 have been filed

arising out of the same F.I.R.

43. This Court, in order to have the consistency, is of the view that the

aforesaid appeals be listed along with this case.

44. As such, the Office is directed to list the aforesaid appeals with this

case before the appropriate Bench.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

19th December, 2025 Samarth A.F.R.