[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Anarasi Rai Son Of Late Jagdish Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:9305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acq. Appeal (C) No.21 of 2022
Anarasi Rai Son of Late Jagdish Rai, Aged about 76
Years, Resident of Dusadh Mohalla, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S. -
Ramgarh, Dist: Ramgarh (Jharkhand)....... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Kumar Son of Chhathi Lal Ray, Aged about
45 years.
3. Chhathilal Rai, Son of Jagdish Rai, Aged about 75
years.
4. Fooljhari Devi, wife of Chhathilal Rai Aged about 70
Years.
Resident of respondents no.2 to 4 - Dusadh
Mohalla, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S. - Ramgarh, Dist:
Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P
For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate
--------
06/Dated: 02nd April, 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the
judgment dated 10.06.2022, passed in Complaint Case
No.213 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Ramgarh, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court
has acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the charges
under Sections 467/ 468/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. An interlocutory application being I.A. No.7699 of 2022
has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment
of acquittal in terms of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
4. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented
through Legal Representatives Vs. The State of
Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752, no leave
to appeal is required to the victim.
Paragraph Nos.34, 35 & 76 of the said judgment are
relevant which are quoted herein-below :-
"34. On the third question, the Full Bench noted
-1- Acq. Appeal (C). No.21 of 2022
2026:JHHC:9305
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)
"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 provision in case of an appeal by a
complainant and has retained that provision
without consequential amendment thereby
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."
The third question was then answered in the
following words : (SCC OnLine Guj para 36
"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."
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.
...
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
-2- Acq. Appeal (C). No.21 of 2022
2026:JHHC:9305
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."."
5. Thus, in the present case the so called appellant is the
victim and as such no leave to appeal is required. Further, the
judgment of acquittal has been passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh and as such the appeal will lie
before the court below itself.
6. In that view of the matter, the present acquittal appeal
is, hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to work
out his remedy in accordance with law.
7. I.A. No.7699 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
02nd April, 2026
Ravi-Chandan/-
Uploaded on 06.04.2026
-3- Acq. Appeal (C). No.21 of 2022
