ORDER 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Leave granted. We have carefully gone through the material on record, the judgment and order impugned and find that the impugned judgment and order is cryptic. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 justifying the order i.e. the right of the Appellant to maintain an appeal under proviso to Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, for short 'Code of Criminal Procedure must be read with Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. where she was required to seek permission to file an appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent. Since the permission was not taken, the dismissal of the appeal is justified. Second contention urged is, even on merits, the DNA test of the child was conducted, which reveals that Respondent No. 1 was not a biological father of the child and the court recorded a finding of fact that the prosecution failed to prove by cogent and convincing evidence that the Appellant was less than 16 years of age. 2. The aforesaid said contentions urged on behalf of Respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted by us for the reason that the order passed by the High Court is a cryptic order. Further, the High Court in the appeal filed by the victim, in exercise of her right under proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, was required to examine the appeal by granting permission, which was required to be granted Under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure., keeping in view the nature of the offence alleged against the Respondent that alleged rape was committed by him and in consequence thereof she has begotten the child. The High Court has not referred to the same in exercise of its power Under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the object and intendment of proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, it confers a statutory right upon the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. The permission has to be granted by the High Court to maintain the appeal in favour of the victim was not considered by the High Court, particularly having regard to the fact that the prosecution has not chosen to file an appeal Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure. against acquittal of Respondent No. 1 on the charges levelled against him. against acquittal of Respondent No. 1 on the charges levelled against him. Since this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court, we allow the present appeal on this count alone. 3. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the allegation of rape against an unmarried helpless alleged minor girl in consequence of which she begotten the child after the rape committed by Respondent No. 1, are the glaring facts, which make us to exercise the power and grant of permission to maintain the appeal by the Appellant herein. 4. We are also not satisfied with the reason assigned by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order in holding that DNA test of the child was conducted, which reveals that the Respondent No. 1 was not the biological father of the child. We are of the considered view that the High Court is required to obtain second opinion of DNA by obtaining fresh samples of Respondent No. 1 and the child and get the DNA test done afresh from the competent authority by taking all necessary safeguards/steps in this regard for the reasons mentioned supra. 5. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court to hear the criminal appeal, after obtaining the second opinion of the DNA by getting the DNA test done afresh from the competent authority on the basis of fresh samples of Respondent No. 1 and the child and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties. An amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to Mr. J.C. Gupta, learned senior Counsel, who has been appointed as amicus curiae by this Court to assist in the matter on behalf of the victim towards professional charges, to be paid by Respondent No. 2, the State government by way of a cheque/demand draft within a month from today. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.