Victim's appeal against acquittal requires leave, and appellate courts must properly reappreciate evidence before affirming acquittal.

The victim's statutory right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not an independent route that bypasses the leave requirement under Section 378(3); such an appeal can proceed only after obtaining leave of the High Court. An appellate court considering an acquittal must also meaningfully reappreciate the evidence and address the grounds raised; a cursory affirmance amounts to an inadequate exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for consideration of leave and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a victim or legal heir, while preferring an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is required to obtain leave under Section 378(3) of that Code; (ii) whether the High Court failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction properly by disposing of the acquittal appeal without adequate reappreciation of the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether a victim or legal heir, while preferring an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is required to obtain leave under Section 378(3) of that Code.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers a statutory right on the victim to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. That right, however, must be read harmoniously with the main enactment in Section 372 and with Section 378(3), which requires leave of the High Court for an appeal against acquittal. The proviso does not create an independent route that bypasses the leave requirement; it qualifies, but does not displace, the general scheme governing criminal appeals.

Conclusion: The victim or legal heir has the right to prefer an appeal, but that appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 can proceed only after obtaining leave under Section 378(3).

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction properly by disposing of the acquittal appeal without adequate reappreciation of the evidence.

Analysis: An appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal must apply its mind to the grounds urged and the evidence on record. A cursory affirmance of acquittal without meaningful consideration of the material and legal contentions amounts to an inadequate exercise of appellate power.

Conclusion: The High Court did not properly exercise appellate jurisdiction and its summary disposal could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was sent back to the High Court for consideration of leave and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a victim's right of appeal against acquittal, but that right remains subject to the procedural requirement of leave under Section 378(3), and an appellate court must meaningfully reappreciate the record before affirming an acquittal.

---