Jharkhand High Court
Rubi Devi vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 18 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:11366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (SJ) No. 19 of 2026
Rubi Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of Santosh Narayan Shahi, resident of
Sainik Colony, Dumardaga, Sugnu, P.O. Sugnu, P.S. Khelgalon (Sadar), District
Ranchi (Jharkhand) .......... Appellant(s)
Vrs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Mukesh Kumar, son of Krishna Murat Sharma, resident of Jojo Basa Colony,
River View, Hatia, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
........ Respondent(s)
.......
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey No.2, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
02/18.04.2026
1. I.A. No.3420 of 2026 has been filed seeking leave to appeal
against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2026, passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XXIX, Ranchi, in Complaint
Case No. 6943 of 2020, 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 has retained that
provision without consequential amendment thereby1 Acquittal Appeal No. 19 of 2026
2026:JHHC:11366making 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. Further the appeal will lie before the next appellate authority of
the Civil Court i.e., the Sessions Judge since it is a Magisterial order.
4. In that view of the matter, the present acquittal appeal is disposed
of by giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy before the
appropriate forum. i.e., Learned Sessions Judge of the concerned Civil
Court.
5. Consequently, I.A. No. 3420 of 2026 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
18.04.2026
A. Mohanty/Raja
Uploaded
____/____/2026
2 Acquittal Appeal No. 19 of 2026
