CGHC010338832026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2389 of 2026 Smt. Pooja Singh W/o Brijpal Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Chanwaripara Karra Tehsil And Police Station Pali District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Brijpal Singh S/o Late Mohar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Hardibazar Tahsil Pali, Police Station Hardibazar District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner /Applicant : Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 29.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District-Korba, in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed and the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, District-Korba, CG in Criminal Case-996 of 2024 is affirmed. Crmp 2389 of 2026 2 3. During the course of hearing, this Court put a specific query to learned counsel for the applicant as to the maintainability of the present application under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023, particularly in view of the fact that the order of acquittal dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, District-Korba, had already been challenged by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court and the said appeal had been dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant was unable to point out any provision under the BNSS conferring a second right of appeal upon the same victim against the order of acquittal which has already been affirmed by the appellate Court. 4. Under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023, a victim has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, and such appeal lies to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against an order of conviction passed by such Court. In terms of Section 415(3) of the BNSS, an appeal against a conviction recorded by a Magistrate lies to the Court of Session. Thus, an appeal by a victim against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class lies before the Court of Session. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1997, has recently clarified that the victim's appeal against an acquittal passed by a Magistrate is governed by the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS and lies before the Court of Session. Crmp 2389 of 2026 3 5. In the present case, the applicant had already availed the aforesaid statutory remedy by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026 before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District-Korba, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali. The said appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2026 and the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court has thereby been affirmed. Having once availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal, the applicant cannot invoke Section 419(4) of BNSS, 2023 to pursue a second appellate remedy after having exhausted the statutory appeal available to her as a victim. The right of appeal is a statutory right and, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring a second appellate remedy, such right cannot be exercised twice by the same party. 6. The aforesaid view also finds support from the decision of the Kerala High Court in Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15, wherein, in substantially similar circumstances, it has been held that once the victim has invoked the appellate remedy under Section 413 of the BNSS before the Sessions Court, another appeal cannot be preferred by the same appellant under Section 419(4) of the BNSS against the order affirming the acquittal, as such a course would amount to a second appeal against the same order of acquittal. It has been held in the case of Gopala Krishnan (supra) that:- “10. The contention of the petitioner that by virtue of the proviso to section 413 of the BNSS, the victim has a right of appeal against every Crmp 2389 of 2026 4 order acquitting or even affirming an order of acquittal is not legally tenable. The proviso to section 413 of the BNSS states that the victim has the 'right to prefer an appeal' in contradistinction to a 'right to prefer appeals'. Even otherwise, the Sanhita contemplates only a right of appeal to a party only once. If the acquittal or conviction, as the case may be, is by the trial court, the right of appeal can be invoked by the aggrieved i.e; the State or the victim or the accused, as the case may be, to the next tier of appellate court. Once that remedy is invoked and the appeal is dismissed, affirming the order under challenge, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as a second appeal. The right of the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal cannot be extended to an order affirming an earlier acquittal of the accused. However, if the trial court had convicted the accused and in the appeal filed by the accused the conviction is reversed, the situation would be different. In such a scenario, the victim shall have a right of appeal against that order of acquittal. The reason is because such an order of acquittal becomes the first order of acquittal of the accused in that case. It needs to be mentioned in this context that, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 132, 134 or even the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the 7/9 Constitution of India stands on a different footing altogether. ** ** ** 12. It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal. Hence, after filing an appeal under section 413 of the BNSS (or under the corresponding proviso of the Cr.P.C) before the Sessions Court, another appeal cannot be Crmp 2389 of 2026 5 preferred by the same appellant under section 419(4) of the BNSS, against the order confirming the acquittal.” 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the present application seeking special leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, followed by the proposed appeal against the judgment dated 31.07.2026, is not maintainable. The applicant has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the said appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Court. The present proceedings, therefore, amount to an attempt to pursue a second appeal against the same order of acquittal, for which no statutory remedy is provided under the BNSS. 8. Consequently, the application for grant of leave to appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. As a corollary consequence, the appeal against acquittal is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.10.06 10:42:20 +0530