Victim's right to appeal against acquittal can be filed before the Sessions Court despite a complaint-case origin.

The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a substantive victim's right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and the appeal lies to the court where an appeal ordinarily lies from conviction. Section 2(wa) defines "victim" broadly to include a person suffering loss or injury, as well as a legal heir or guardian. This victim-centric remedy operates independently of Section 378(4), which continues to govern the complainant's remedy in its own field. The amendment was intended to strengthen victim rights and provide an effective remedy without requiring a victim in a complaint case to seek leave before the High Court. The victim's appeal before the Sessions Court was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa), a victim in a complaint case against an order of acquittal can maintain an appeal before the Sessions Court, or whether such an appeal must still be taken only under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers on a victim a substantive right to prefer an appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and directs the appeal to the court where an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction. The definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) is broad and covers a person who has suffered loss or injury, including a legal heir or guardian. The later amendment introducing these rights was held to operate independently of Section 378(4), which continues to govern the complainant's remedy in its own field. The Court held that the legislative object of the amendment was to strengthen victim rights and provide an efficacious remedy without compelling a victim to approach the High Court on leave proceedings merely because the case arose from a complaint. The victim in the present case was therefore entitled to file the appeal before the Sessions Court.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected, and the victim's appeal before the Sessions Court was held maintainable.

---