Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010012352013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./422/2013 SMTI MONIKA LOHAR D/O RAMPURI LOHAR R/O VILL- NO.1 NIZGARUAJHAR, P.O. PANERY, P.S. PANERY, DIST. UDALGURI BTAD, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR 2:HEMEN KURMI S/O RADHA KURMI R/O VILL- NO.1 NIZGARUAJHAR P.O. and P.S. PANERY DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D C C PHUKAN, MS.J GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR.S BORTHAKUR,MR.A BORGOHAIN,MR. P K BORAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17-09-2025 None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 2/3 assailing the judgment and order dated 24-07-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 9(D-U)/2013 acquitting the respondent, herein, from the charges framed under Section 376/ 417 IPC levelled against him. The petitioner, herein, as informant had lodged an FIR on 15-04-2012 before the Panery Police Station, inter alia, alleging therein that the respondent, herein, by promising to marry her had developed physical intimacy with her for which, she had become pregnant. It was alleged that the respondent had not married the complainant till date and that on 31-03-2012 she gave birth to a child whose father is the respondent, herein. The said FIR was registered as Panery P.S. Case No. 16/2012 under Section 376/ 417 IPC. The police on conclusion of the investigation laid charge-sheet against the respondent, herein, under Section 376/417 IPC. The charge was also framed by the learned trial court against the respondent, herein, under Section 376/ 417 IPC. The learned trial court, upon conclusion of the trial, on appreciating the materials coming on record was pleased to acquit the petitioner, herein, from the charges under Section 376/ 417 IPC, vide judgment dated 24-07-2013. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present criminal revision petition assailing the judgment of the learned trial court. 3. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has submitted that the present appeal would not be maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C. 4. The provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C., being relevant, is extracted, here-in-below, for ready reference:- “Section 372 Cr.P.C. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. Page No.# 3/3 No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force: [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.]” A perusal of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. would go to reveal that a victim has also been granted a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 5. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner, herein, is the victim as well as the informant and accordingly a right accrued to her to file an appeal in the matter, however, the said right has not been availed by the petitioner, herein. In view of the above provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. the present revision petition would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 6. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in the matter, in the event, it is so advised. Send back the TCR along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant