1 cr-apeal-165-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2011 Pala Chandu Shaikh ..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. Priten P.Killedar Adv. for Appellant Mr. H.J.Dedhia A.P.P. for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2011 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Killedar, the learned advocate for the appellant. 2 This appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. The amended provision of the said Section gives a right of appeal to the victim and the proviso added to Section 372 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (amended) Act, 2008 reads as under: “Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused 2 cr-apeal-165-11 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”. 3 In Sessions Case No. 679 of 2008 the appellant was the complainant and he was examined as P.W.1. As per the complainant, the accused Shri. Jilesingh Ramkisan Puniya had committed the murder of Shri. Rajendra Nasibsingh Surayan near the cowshed of Kadamwak-vasti, near Loni-Kalbhor, Pune. The prosecution further claimed that P.W.1 along with his six brothers resides at Motiwala Malem, Kadamwak-vasti, Loni-kalbhor in the vicinity of Pune city and all of them are engaged in the business of selling milk. They are originally residents of Haryana and used to purchase buffaloes from the said State. The accused is also from Haryana and he had come to Pune to receive money from the complainant as the complainant had purchased buffaloes from him. The accused was staying with the complainant for one and half months. The deceased Rajendra Surayan was also from Haryana and had sold buffaloes to the complainant. He had also come to Pune to recover money from the complainant on the date of the incident. On 11.4.2009 there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at about 8 p.m. and the complainant had rescued both of them. Thereafter, they 3 cr-apeal-165-11 went to sleep at about 10 p.m. but in the early morning at about 3.00 a.m. the accused called the complainant and told him that the deceased abused him and therefore, he killed him (Rajendra Surayan). 4 From this case of the prosecution, it is evident that the complainant is neither a member of the family of the deceased nor is he a legal representative of the said deceased and therefore, the complainant cannot be called a victim so as to empower him to file the instant appeal against the order of acquittal. 5 Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. [ U.D.SALVI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]