JUDGMENT : This Criminal Leave Petition, under Sections 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the petitioner Smti. Dipali Barman seeking leave of this court for preferring an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2019, passed by Shri H. Das, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bongaigaon, Assam in PRC Case No. 50/2018. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order the learned court below had acquitted the accused persons from the offence punishable under section 342/323/354/34 IPC. 2. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under: “On 28.08.2017, one Suresh Barman of village Atugaon, of Bongaigaon lodged one FIR with the O/C Bongaigaon P.S. to the effect that on 27.08.2017, at about 7 pm one Gaurikanta Barman had informed him that his (informant’s) sister-in-law Smti. Dipali Barman was asked to remain present in one meeting held at the premises of Atugaon Ujanpara Nat Ghar and when his sister-in-law went there then the accused persons namely Shri Prasenjit Barman, Shri Anjan Barman, Taren Choudhary; Shri Durgeswar Pathak; Shri Khanin Sinha; Smti. Labanya Singha; Smti. Rashmi Choudhary, Smti. Madhabi Barman; Smti. Jane Bala Barman; Smti. Subhadra Barman; Smti. Nilima Choudhary; Smti. Kalpana Barman; Shri Chitar Barman; Shri Jagadish Nath Deb; Smti. Nilima Choudhary; all are resident of Atugaon, fasten her with a pillar of Nat Ghar and assaulted her and cut her hairs and disrobed her by tearing her clothes. Upon the said FIR the O/C Bongaigaon P.S. had registered a case, being Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 629/2017 under section 147/342/323/354-B/326 IPC and endorsed S.I. Deba Kanta Boro to investigate the same. The investigation had culminated in submission of Final Report in the court. But rejecting the Final Report the learned court below had taken cognizance of the offences under section 147/342/323/ 354-B/34 IPC against all the accused persons and put them on trial. Then at the end of trial the learned court below had acquitted all the accused persons.” 3. The investigation had culminated in submission of Final Report in the court. But rejecting the Final Report the learned court below had taken cognizance of the offences under section 147/342/323/ 354-B/34 IPC against all the accused persons and put them on trial. Then at the end of trial the learned court below had acquitted all the accused persons.” 3. Being highly aggrieved, the victim had decided to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.05.2019, and to grant leave of appeal the victim/petitioner had approached this court by filing the present petition on the ground that the learned court below has committed grave illegalities in recording acquittal of the accused persons and that it has failed to appreciate the evidence on the record of the victim as well as four other witnesses in its proper perspective and misconstrued and misinterprets the provisions of law and that there is materials to establish that the accused persons called the victim to the Nat Ghar and tied her with one pillar and then assaulted her and cut her hair and disrobed her and put garland of sandals and also liquor bottle around her neck and ignoring all these facts the learned court below had acquitted the accused persons. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 15. 5. Mr. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that despite having sufficient material against the accused persons the learned court below, without application of judicial mind, and without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, had recorded acquittal of the accused persons. Mr. Sarkar further submits that the petitioner has sufficient grounds to file the appeal against acquittal and that in view of the material available on the record there is high probability in allowing the appeal by this court. And unless the leave is granted the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice. Therefore, it is contended to grant leave. 6. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P. had subscribed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that there exists good ground for appeal. 7. Per contra, Mr. And unless the leave is granted the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice. Therefore, it is contended to grant leave. 6. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P. had subscribed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that there exists good ground for appeal. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there is specific provision for preferring appeal against acquittal in the Code of Criminal procedure and despite this petition is preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not maintainable and therefore it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the grounds mentioned therein and the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned court below. Also I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.05.2019. And I find substance in the submission of Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of section 372 Cr.P.C., this petition, under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not maintainable. 9. The law in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 . It is held in the aforementioned case that in view of the provision of section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim is not required to pray for grant of special leave of appeal, as the victim has now a statutory tight of appeal and the right provided to victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. 10. In the result, I find this petition not maintainable, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The victim is relegated to prefer an appeal under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the given facts and circumstances, it is provided that the parties shall bear their own costs.