S. SAIBABA Vs. PALLE TRISHULNATH GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 6/2/2023 in S.C.No.381 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Medchal.

(2.) The appellant is representing Suraram Saibaba Goud, who died and the de-facto complainant in the appeal against acquittal. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 were tried for the offence under Sec. 304 of IPC and by judgment dtd. 6/2/2023, the appellants were found not guilty.

(3.) The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused is that the appellant cannot prosecute the appeal since he does not fit into the description of a victim as per the definition under Sec. 2(w) of Cr.P.C. As such, the question of filing an appeal under Sec. 372 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. It is for the State to prefer an appeal under Sec. 378 of Cr.P.C.