RAJENDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr.Appeal no.160 of 2013 whereby the aforesaid appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) IT is urged by Mr. Gautam Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal appeal no.160/13 was preferred by the petitioner who is the informant in Sindri(Gaushala) P.S. case no.09/2003 corresponding to G.R. No.576/2003. That the aforesaid case was lodged under Sections 341,323,324,506/34 IPC and after investigation, police laid charge -sheet against accused persons upon which cognizance was taken whereafter, the case was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class Dhanbad and thereafter it was transferred to the Court of SDJM, Dhanbad. After framing of charges under the aforesaid Sections the accused were put to trial and witnesses were examined whereafter statement of accused persons under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On consideration of evidence and materials on record all the six accused persons were acquitted vide order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Dhanbad.

(3.) IT is contended that the court below has failed to appreciate that provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. envisages the right of the victim to prefer an appeal against any order of acquittal or conviction for lessor offence or against inadequate compensation. To buttress his argument he has relied on the decision in the case of Vivekanand Pathak Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 1 JL JR 1. It is submitted that in the said case the court has held that the complainant being the victim has the substantive right to prefer the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction passed by the court.