[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dileshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhant & Anr on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acq. Appeal (C) No.09 of 2026
Dileshwar Yadav ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhant & Anr. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kr. Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
--------
th
02/Dated: 15 April, 2026
I.A. No.1417 of 2026
1. The present interlocutory application being I.A.
No.1417 of 2026 has been filed seeking leave to appeal
against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2025, passed
by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal
Appeal No.168 of 2025, in terms of Section 419(4) of the
BNSS, 2023.
2. 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 :-
"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)
"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
-1- Acq. Appeal (C). No.09 of 2026
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 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."
3. In that view of the matter, I.A. No.1417 of 2026 is,
hereby, disposed of.
1. Issue notice upon the respondent No.02, in the appeal
as well as in limitation matter, under speed post as well as
under ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed
within a week.
2. Call for the Trial Court Record from the court
concerned.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
15th April, 2026
Ravi-Chandan/-
-2- Acq. Appeal (C). No.09 of 2026
