Victim's independent right of appeal under criminal procedure is distinct from the State's appeal and may proceed separately.

The proviso to Section 372 confers an independent statutory right of appeal on a victim, so a victim's appeal against acquittal is maintainable even if the State has filed or pursued a separate appeal. The State's right of appeal under Section 378 is likewise independent and is not barred merely because a victim's appeal has been admitted. The text further clarifies that no leave is required for a victim's appeal unless the victim is also the complainant challenging acquittal, in which case Section 378(4) applies. A victim who is not the complainant, and appeals concerning inadequate compensation or conviction for a lesser offence, do not require leave.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a victim's appeal against acquittal is maintainable notwithstanding that the State has filed or pursued a separate appeal against the same order; (ii) whether the State's appeal is not maintainable because the victim's appeal has already been admitted; and (iii) whether a victim must obtain leave of the Court to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and if so, in what situations.

Issue (i): Whether a victim's appeal against acquittal is maintainable notwithstanding that the State has filed or pursued a separate appeal against the same order.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers a substantive and independent right of appeal on the victim. That right is not made dependent on whether the State has chosen to appeal, nor is it controlled by the State's appeal under Section 378. The scheme of the Code treats the victim's right as distinct from the State's right, and the victim may also appeal on grounds such as inadequate compensation, which are not available to the State.

Conclusion: The victim's appeal is maintainable and is not barred by the State's appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the State's appeal is not maintainable because the victim's appeal has already been admitted.

Analysis: The statutory right of appeal available to the State under Section 378 is also independent. The Code does not provide that the State's right is extinguished or suspended merely because a victim has filed or succeeded in having an appeal admitted. Each right operates in its own field, though simultaneous hearing may be desirable to avoid inconsistent results.

Conclusion: The State's appeal is maintainable and is not barred by the victim's appeal.

Issue (iii): Whether a victim must obtain leave of the Court to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and if so, in what situations.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 does not itself impose a leave requirement. If the victim is also the complainant and the appeal challenges acquittal, the complainant-victim must comply with Section 378(4). If the victim is not the complainant, no leave or special leave is required. Where the grievance is only inadequate compensation or conviction for a lesser offence, no leave is necessary in any event.

Conclusion: A complainant-victim challenging acquittal must seek leave as contemplated by Section 378(4), but a victim who is not the complainant need not seek leave; no leave is required for appeals concerning inadequate compensation or conviction for a lesser offence.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by affirming the maintainability of both the victim's and the State's appeals, while clarifying that the leave requirement applies only to a complainant-victim appealing against acquittal and not to a non-complainant victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 372 creates an independent statutory right of appeal for a victim, which cannot be curtailed by the State's appeal, and any leave requirement must arise from the statute itself and not by implication.

---