Mahanthu Chaudhary @ Mahanthu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.49 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Mahanthu Chaudhary @ Mahanthu, S/o- Else Sadhavi, Resident of VillageAdwait Swarup Mahila Sant Bhawan Ashram, Bahiyara More, Sughri, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawadah.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Tapasyanand @ Shyam Chandra Chaudhary, S/O Ram Narayan Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Senhara, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Basti, U.P. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Addl PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 07-08-2025 This is an appeal preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC').
2. On going through the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the sole accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 354(B) and Section 364/511 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). He has been convicted by learned District and Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura vide judgment dated 21.11.2022 for both the offences and has been ordered to undergo three years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 354(B) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.49 of 2023(6) dt.07-08-2025 2/2 offence under Section 364/511 IPC vide order dated 25.11.2022.
3. On a bare reading of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC, it is evident that the victim has 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.
4. In the present case, the accused has been convicted under both the charged sections.
5. This appeal cannot be maintained. It is dismissed.
6. On finding that the appeal has been filed on legal advice which is not correct, we refrain from imposing cost upon the appellant.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ajit Kumar, J) lekhi/- U T