Case Background
The case arises from a matrimonial dispute. The victim, Suman Devi, wife of respondent no. 3, filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 85 of 2006 at Bhagalpur against four accused persons, including her husband and father-in-law.
On this complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 323, 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all four accused.
After trial, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Naugachia, convicted opposite party no. 2 (father-in-law) and opposite party no. 3 (husband) under Sections 323, 498A, 406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them. The remaining two accused were acquitted.
Aggrieved by this conviction, the father-in-law and husband filed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Bhagalpur. The Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Naugachia, allowed the appeal on 07.12.2016 and set aside their conviction and sentence.
The victim, dissatisfied with this acquittal by the appellate court, approached the Patna High Court. She first filed Special Leave Application (S.L.A.) No. 11 of 2017 on 09.02.2017. On 02.11.2017, the High Court granted her special leave to file a criminal appeal against the acquittal.
On that basis, she filed Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 1 of 2018. During the pendency of this appeal, she requested that it be converted into a criminal revision. By order dated 20.02.2019, the High Court allowed this request, and the matter became Criminal Revision No. 383 of 2019.
When the criminal revision came up for hearing, the State and the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that the revision was not maintainable because an appeal remedy existed for the victim.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar focused on a narrow but important legal question: when there is a judgment of acquittal by an appellate court in a criminal case, what is the proper remedy for the victim—an appeal or a revision?
The State and the opposite parties argued that the victim had correctly filed S.L.A. No. 11 of 2017 and then Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 1 of 2018, but that the subsequent conversion of that appeal into a criminal revision was legally wrong. They relied on Section 372 and Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., and on Section 401 Cr.P.C., which restricts revision when an appeal remedy is available.
They pointed out that Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. says that when an appeal lies under the Code and no appeal is filed, a revision at the instance of the party who could have appealed cannot be entertained. Therefore, a criminal revision by the victim was not maintainable where the law clearly gave her a right of appeal.
On the other hand, counsel for the victim argued that once the Sessions Court had already decided the appeal and acquitted the accused, no further appeal lay, and therefore the only remedy left was to file a criminal revision before the High Court against the appellate judgment.
To resolve this, the Patna High Court carefully went through the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the authoritative Supreme Court rulings on the rights of victims to appeal.
The Court first examined Section 378 Cr.P.C., which deals with appeals against acquittal. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) deal mainly with appeals by the State or Central Government in cases investigated by the police or certain agencies. Sub-section (4) specifically deals with appeals against acquittal in cases instituted upon complaint, where the complainant can appeal to the High Court if special leave is granted. Sub-section (5) fixes limitation periods, and sub-section (6) bars appeals by the State if special leave to the complainant is refused.
Next, the Court looked at Section 372 Cr.P.C., which lays down that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided by the Code or any other law. The key change came with the 2009 amendment, which inserted a Proviso giving victims an independent right to appeal:
Under this Proviso, a victim can appeal against: (i) an order acquitting the accused, (ii) conviction for a lesser offence, or (iii) inadequate compensation. The appeal lies to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court.
The judgment notes that before this Proviso, victims had no independent appeal right except where they were “complainants” under Section 378(4). After the Proviso, the victim’s statutory right of appeal is independent and broader.
The Court then discussed the conflicting views that had earlier existed about whether a victim needed leave or special leave to file an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372. One view was that this right was absolute and did not require leave under Section 378(3) or special leave under Section 378(4). Another view was that the Proviso must be read together with Section 378(3) and (4), and that leave or special leave was still necessary.
This controversy, the Court explained, was settled by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752. In that case, the victim of an assault had first filed an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 against an acquittal, which the High Court dismissed as not maintainable. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that:
- The victim’s right to appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 must be given a liberal and beneficial interpretation.
- A victim is entitled to file such appeal before the court where an appeal against conviction would ordinarily lie.
- The victim does not need leave or special leave under Section 378(3) or (4) Cr.P.C. for such an appeal.
The Patna High Court quoted extensively from this judgment, including the Supreme Court’s emphasis that the Proviso must be given “life” to benefit victims.
The Court also noted the minority view in Mallikarjun Kodagali, which had stressed balancing the victim’s right with the accused’s strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal. However, the majority view, which recognised an absolute right of appeal for victims under the Proviso to Section 372, is binding.
The High Court then referred to another important Supreme Court decision: Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115. In that case, the accused had been partly convicted and partly acquitted by the trial court, and the first appellate court eventually acquitted them of all charges. The victim then filed a criminal revision before the High Court, which used its revisional powers to set aside the acquittal and restore the conviction. The Supreme Court examined:
- Whether the High Court could convert an acquittal into conviction in revision.
- Whether a victim having a right of appeal under Section 372 can instead maintain a revision.
- How Section 401(5) Cr.P.C. allows treating a revision as an appeal.
In paragraph 13 and 13.1 of Joseph Stephen, which the Patna High Court quoted, the Supreme Court held clearly that:
- After the 2009 Proviso to Section 372, a victim has a statutory right of appeal against an order of acquittal.
- Where such an appeal lies, no revision at the instance of the victim against acquittal should be entertained.
- The victim must be relegated to file an appeal, because appellate jurisdiction is wider than revisional jurisdiction.
- The right of appeal for the victim under the Proviso to Section 372 is an absolute right and does not require special leave.
The Supreme Court further clarified that, in complaint cases, a complainant who is not a “victim” still needs special leave under Section 378(4) to appeal, but a victim, whether in a police case or complaint case, can appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 without leave.
The Patna High Court also noted how the Supreme Court, in Joseph Stephen, directed High Courts to treat certain revisions as appeals under Section 372 where appropriate, and that this must be done by a judicial order under Section 401(5).
The Court then referred to the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Renu Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (Criminal Revision No. 520 of 2019, decided on 18.04.2024). There, the informant challenged an appellate acquittal through criminal revision. The Jharkhand High Court, relying on Joseph Stephen, dismissed the revision as not maintainable but gave liberty to pursue the proper remedy.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Patna High Court found:
- This case started as a complaint case by the victim, who is both complainant and victim.
- The trial court convicted the husband and father-in-law, but the first appellate court acquitted them.
- Against this appellate judgment of acquittal, the victim had a statutory right to file an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. directly to the High Court, without needing leave or special leave.
- She had in fact obtained special leave earlier (S.L.A. No. 11 of 2017) and filed Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 1 of 2018, even though, in light of the later Supreme Court rulings, such leave was not necessary for a victim.
- The subsequent conversion of that appeal into a criminal revision was erroneous.
Because an appeal remedy existed for the victim under the Proviso to Section 372, Section 401(4) barred a criminal revision by her against acquittal. Therefore, the present criminal revision was hit by Section 401(4) and, strictly speaking, was not maintainable.
However, Section 401(5) allows the High Court, where an appeal lies but a revision has been filed under an erroneous belief, to treat the revision as an appeal if the Court finds it necessary in the interest of justice. Following the approach endorsed in Joseph Stephen, the Patna High Court decided to exercise this power.
In the concluding part of the judgment, the Court held that the criminal revision petition would be converted into a criminal appeal. The Registry was directed to make necessary corrections and to list the matter before the appropriate Bench as an appeal, with the permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for victims of crime, especially in Bihar, because it clarifies which remedy they must use when they are unhappy with an acquittal, even if that acquittal is by an appellate court.
The Patna High Court confirms that a victim now has a clear, independent right to file an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal, including an appellate acquittal. The victim does not need prior permission (leave or special leave) from the High Court for this.
At the same time, the judgment warns that where such an appeal remedy exists, a criminal revision by the victim is not maintainable because of Section 401(4). Victims must choose the correct route—appeal, not revision.
However, the Court has also shown a humane, practical approach. Instead of dismissing the victim’s revision as not maintainable, it used its power under Section 401(5) to convert the revision into an appeal. This ensures that the technical mistake in procedure does not shut the door on the victim’s grievance.
For laypersons, especially women facing dowry-related cruelty, the message is clear: if the trial court or appellate court acquits the accused or reduces the offence or compensation, they can directly appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., and should avoid filing a revision.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: When an appellate court acquits the accused in a complaint-based dowry cruelty case, does the victim have a remedy of criminal appeal or criminal revision before the High Court?
Answer: The victim has a statutory and absolute right to file a criminal appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the appellate acquittal; a criminal revision is barred by Section 401(4) when such appeal lies. - Issue: Can a criminal revision wrongly filed by a victim, where an appeal lies, be saved?
Answer: Yes. Under Section 401(5) Cr.P.C., the High Court may, by judicial order and in the interest of justice, treat the revision as a criminal appeal and decide it accordingly. - Issue: Does a victim need leave or special leave from the High Court to appeal against acquittal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.?
Answer: No. Following Mallikarjun Kodagali and Joseph Stephen, the victim’s right of appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 is absolute and does not require leave or special leave.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 – Three-judge bench decision clarifying that victims have an absolute right to appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking leave or special leave.
- Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115 – Supreme Court decision holding that where a victim has a right of appeal under Section 372, a revision against acquittal is not maintainable, and directing that revisions may be treated as appeals under Section 372 in appropriate cases.
- Renu Mishra v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., Criminal Revision No. 520 of 2019, judgment dated 18.04.2024 (Jharkhand High Court) – Relied upon Joseph Stephen to hold that a victim’s revision against appellate acquittal was not maintainable.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 383 of 2019 (converted into Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 1 of 2018); arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2014 and Complaint Case No. 85 of 2006 (Bhagalpur)
Case Title: Smt. Suman Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 723
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner (victim/complainant): Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
- For Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 (accused–husband and father-in-law): Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision petition arising out of a complaint-based dowry cruelty case; challenge to appellate acquittal, with the High Court ultimately converting the criminal revision into a criminal appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Date of High Court Judgment: 04.04.2025
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMzODMjMjAxOSMxI04=-16eEsZ4–ak1–g8A=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
