RANU THAKUR Vs. DAYASHANKER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The aforesaid said contentions urged on behalf of Respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted by us for the reason that the order passed by the High Court is a cryptic order. Further, the High Court in the appeal filed by the victim, in exercise of her right under proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, was required to examine the appeal by granting permission, which was required to be granted Under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure., keeping in view the nature of the offence alleged against the Respondent that alleged rape was committed by him and in consequence thereof she has begotten the child. The High Court has not referred to the same in exercise of its power Under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the object and intendment of proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, it confers a statutory right upon the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. The permission has to be granted by the High Court to maintain the appeal in favour of the victim was not considered by the High Court, particularly having regard to the fact that the prosecution has not chosen to file an appeal Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure. against acquittal of Respondent No. 1 on the charges levelled against him. Since this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court, we allow the present appeal on this count alone.

(3.) Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the allegation of rape against an unmarried helpless alleged minor girl in consequence of which she begotten the child after the rape committed by Respondent No. 1, are the glaring facts, which make us to exercise the power and grant of permission to maintain the appeal by the Appellant herein.