JUDGMENT Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Application for leave to appeal has been directed to be filed by order of Hon. Single Judge on administrative side. There is no provision for leave to appeal either in Criminal Procedure Code or High Court Rules in so far as appeal under section 372 is concerned . In Smt. Lalmati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (Crl. Misc. Application u/s 372 Cr.P.C.(Leave to Appeal) No. 127 of 2013, Hon. Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sharma has examined this issue and held that no leave to appeal is required for the victim to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned in proviso to section 372,Cr.P.C. and he has a indefeasible statutory right to file the appeal. We endorse the aforesaid view and as such no orders are required to be passed on the application for leave. 2. Complainant-Mohd. Zameel has approached this Court under section 372, Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 388 of 2010, State Vs. Muzammil and others, by which the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges under section 498-A, 304B IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order. 4. The judgment impugned has been assailed on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence on record; that deceased Tarannum has died an unnatural death within five months of her marriage; that she had 95% burn injuries and accused respondents have not explained as to how she received burn injuries and that she was burnt by the accused respondents on account of non fulfillment of their demand of a car in dowry. 5. From the statements of P.W.1 Jamil and P.W.2 Smt. Zubeda, who are father and mother of the deceased, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was no demand of dowry in the marriage of deceased Tarannum nor any complaint or report was made by them to any of the authorities regarding harassment of their daughter on that ground. It has further come in evidence that deceased Tarannum alongwith her husband was living separately on first floor of the house while her in-laws were residing on the ground floor and Muzammil-husband of the deceased, was not present at the time of the incident. It has further come in evidence that deceased Tarannum alongwith her husband was living separately on first floor of the house while her in-laws were residing on the ground floor and Muzammil-husband of the deceased, was not present at the time of the incident. Soon after the incident, Tarannum was taken to Modinagar Jeevan hospital by her in-laws and thereafter to Safdarganj Hospital, Delhi where she succumbed to the injuries during treatment. From these circumstances, the trial court concluded that had the accused set her on fire, they would not have taken her for treatment immediately after the incident and informed her parents. From the medical evidence, thermal burns were found on the body of Tarannum and in the evidence of the doctor it has come that there was no smell of kerosene oil. The prosecution has not been able to prove its version that Tarannum was set on fire by the accused respondents on account of non fulfilment of their demand of car in dowry. There is also no statement under section 161 or dying declaration by Tarannum substantiating the prosecution version. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgment, in our considered view, the reasons assigned and conclusions drawn by the trial court are based on the evidence on record. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. For all the reasons aforesaid, the appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed.