Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been taken out by the original complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31-7-2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 220 of 1999 whereby the present Respondent No. 1-original accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 2. It is to be noted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment and order of acquittal. 3. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by the complainant-Abdulgani Abdulrehman Metrawala, a resident of Santrampur, before Santrampur Police Station on 4-2-1996 at about 14.15 hours which has been registered as I.C.R. No. 28 of 1996 inter alia alleging that on 3-2-1996 at about 2230 hours when his son Mustaq aged 35 yeas and his wife Sugarabibi aged 60 years were talking about the food to be prepared in the morning by sitting in the gallery covered with steel grill, a jeep suddenly passed near to his house in which accused PSI Bhabhor was sitting. Though there was no disturbance in the area, PSI Bhabhor opened fire from his service revolver from the running jeep causing bullet injuries on the neck of his wife breaking her right side ear and also injuries on the chest of his son as a result of which, his son fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. His steel grill was also damaged in the firing. Due to shouting of his wife for help, neighbouring people gathered there and both of them were removed to the hospital where Dr. Chandan declared his son dead while primary treatment was given to his wife. His wife was thereafter shifted to Civil Hospital, Godhra for further treatment from where she was removed to a hospital at Baroda. It was mainly alleged that though there was no disturbance in the area and peace was completely maintained in the area, PSI, Shri Bhabhor opened fire from the running jeep. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, investigation was carried out and at the end of investigation, ‘C’ summary was filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Santrampur, which was numbered as Summary No. 96 of 1996. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, investigation was carried out and at the end of investigation, ‘C’ summary was filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Santrampur, which was numbered as Summary No. 96 of 1996. As per the ‘C’ summary report, to control the communal riots by unruly mobs in the area and also to prevent loss of lives and damage to properties, Police Officer had no other option but to open fire. Since the bullet dashed with the grill of the gallery of the complainant, it was broken into small pieces and as small pieces of bullet spread here and there, son and wife of the complainant received injuries through them. FSL report shows that Article A/5 recovered from the body of Mustaq was found to have piece of bullet but it could not be said with certainty to be the piece of bullet from the service revolver of accused or from 303 Rifle of other Police Officers. The learned Magistrate was therefore requested by the Investigating Officer to grant the said ‘C’ summary report. However, the said ‘C’ summary report was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 9-4-1999 and an order under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was passed. It was held therein that since no prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC was made out, order was passed to issue summons to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 5. As the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Santrampur, has no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 304 of IPC, order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused submitted an application there at Ex. 30 praying that since mandatory sanction under Section 197 CrPC from the competent authority has not been obtained before prosecuting him, cognizance cannot be taken against the accused and no prosecution can be initiated against him. However, no order was passed below said application. Charge was framed against the accused at Ex. 19 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. The accused denied the said charge and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses namely, the complainant-Abdulgani Abdulrehman Shaikh at Ex. 24; injured Sugarabibi Abdulgani at Ex. Charge was framed against the accused at Ex. 19 for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. The accused denied the said charge and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses namely, the complainant-Abdulgani Abdulrehman Shaikh at Ex. 24; injured Sugarabibi Abdulgani at Ex. 30; Dr.Lalsinh Gulabsinh Ravat Ex. 27; Police witnesses Parvatsinh Kalubhai Damor at Ex. 32, Bhagabhai Ranjitsinh Ganava at Ex. 37, etc. The prosecution also produced and placed reliance on many documentary evidence namely, complaint, panchnama of scene of offence, other relevant panchnamas of recovery of muddamal, FSL report, medical certificate, post mortem note of deceased Mustaq and other relevant documents. 7. On submission of closing pursis by the prosecution, learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In his further statement, he stated that he was on duty at Santrampur Police Station. Since a mob of Hindu and Muslim communities were pelting stones to each other near Shibhai Chowk, open firing was resorted to by the Police Officer. It was further stated that from Shibhai Chowk to Brahmanvala area, a big mob of Muslim community was passing through by pelting stones and hence, to control the mob, he was compelled to open fire. It was further stated that another big mob also gathered near Santrampur Nashville Chowk and was pelting stones on the police jeep and police party and hence, he also received injuries on left side of ribs and abdomen. Driver of the jeep, Shri Madhouse, also received injuries on his head. It was further stated that when he was passing through Shibhai Chowk towards Nurimazjid, there was no occasion to open fire. He then went to Santrampur Police Station to lodge the complaint where the present complainant was also seen there. He specifically stated that he was not under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicants at the time of incident. He denied to examine himself on oath nor showed any willingness to examine any witness on his behalf. At the end of trial, after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on considering the evidence on record, delivered the impugned judgment whereby the Respondent No. 1-accused was acquitted, which is giving rise to prefer the present revision. 8. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant-original complainant, Mr. At the end of trial, after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on considering the evidence on record, delivered the impugned judgment whereby the Respondent No. 1-accused was acquitted, which is giving rise to prefer the present revision. 8. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant-original complainant, Mr. Anand J. Yagnik, learned Advocate, Hetvi H. Sancheti for the Respondent No. 1-original accused and learned APP, Mr. K.P. Raval for the Respondent No. 2-State. 9. Learned Advocate, Mr. Anand J. Yagnik for the original complainant has placed on record his written submissions along with the citations relied on by him. He has made his submissions which have been stated in his written submissions. Still, however, he has submitted that though there was no disturbance in the area, the Respondent No. 1-accused, who at the relevant point of time working in Santrampur Police Station and who was completely drunk, had fired bullet from his service revolver inside the house of the complainant without any reason while passing from the house of deceased killing the deceased and seriously injuring mother of the deceased. However, the learned trial Court without considering those allegations acquitted the accused for lack of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. According to him, sanction under Section 197 is not necessary when a drunken PSI fired a bullet from his service rifle during discharge of his official duty. He has further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that if the bullet was fired either from 303 or from a revolver at a distance of more than 400 metres, fatal injuries could not have been sustained by the deceased. He has further submitted that the relevant evidence of injured witness Sugarabibi Abdulgani at Ex. 30 and other eye witnesses have not been believed by the trial Court on the ground that they are interested witnesses. According to him, baring some minor contradictions, their evidence are otherwise wholly trustworthy and reliable. Since, the case against the Respondent No. 1-accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of these witnesses, it is requested that the Respondent No. 1-accused may be severely punished by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has relied on (2008) 9 SCC 204 in the case of Harendra Sarkar vs. State of Assam. 10. Learned Advocate Ms. He has relied on (2008) 9 SCC 204 in the case of Harendra Sarkar vs. State of Assam. 10. Learned Advocate Ms. Hetvi for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that if the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is prima facie found to be perverse, then only, in revision, Court can interfere. It is submitted that since there were riots between Hindus and Muslims, to disburse the mob, firing was resorted to by the Respondent No. 1. The accused and other police officers also sustained injuries while trying to control the mob. Since there were inconsistencies in the statements of complainant and other witnesses, their evidence was rightly not relied on by the trial Court while arriving at a conclusion. Drawing my attention towards the evidence of P.W. No. 6, Shri Parwatsinh Damor Ex. 32, it is submitted that three rounds of gun shots, two from the revolver of the accused and another from the rifle of Shri Parwatsinh Damor, were fired. Hence, it was rightly held by the trial Court that it was not specifically identified as to by which bullet of revolver or rifle, deceased and injured sustained injuries and hence also, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 was rightly acquitted. It is further submitted that the accused was also acquitted for the different offence registered under prohibition Act and hence, it cannot be said that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. Since the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions is legal and proper, it is submitted that the same is not required to be interfered with. She has also relied on following decisions: (1) AIR 2008 SC 1937 (2) AIR 2004 SAC 730 (3) (1987) 1 SCC 288 (4) (2004) 13 SCC 374 (5) ( 2005 1 SCC 115 and (6) (2003) 12 SCC 758 . 11. Learned APP, Mr. K.P. Raval, has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is legal and proper and hence, State has not preferred any appeal and hence, this revision is required to be dismissed. 12. Relevant evidence shown to me by the learned advocates for the respective parties together with the impugned judgment and order of conviction were gone into detail by me. Decisions cited by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were also gone through by me. 12. Relevant evidence shown to me by the learned advocates for the respective parties together with the impugned judgment and order of conviction were gone into detail by me. Decisions cited by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were also gone through by me. Relying on the law laid down in those judgments, I proceed further. 13. I am aware that the revisional Court has limited power to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court and only if it is found to be perverse or there is abuse of process of law or there is improper appreciation of evidence on record, findings can be interfered with. 14. It appears from Ex. 40, which is the panchnama of police jeep, that the mob pelted on the police jeep causing injuries to the accused and other police officers clearly showing that they were trying to control the unruly mob from pelting stones and causing loss of lives or damage to the properties. 15. Prosecution witness No. 3, Lalsinh Gulabsinh Ravat Ex. 27 and prosecution witness No. 6, Parvatsinh Kalubhai Damor at Ex. 32 have deposed that there were disturbances near the house of complainant and a big mob was passing through near the house of the complainant. 16. Another important documentary evidence is the panchnama of scene of offence at Ex. 46. As per this panchnama, the offence took place near Bhoivada Tekri Falia four cross roads. There was a pandola of 45’x45' which was also damaged because of pelting of stones and number of pieces of bricks and stones were found at this place. As per the said panchnama, pieces of bricks and stones were found at a radius of 300 mtrs. on the road leading to Police station. From the western and eastern sides of the pandola and the road towards mosque, number of bricks as well as stones were found lying. On the wall of Nurimazjid also, marks of stone pelting was seen and ten window glasses were also broken due to pelting of stones. On the southern side of the road leading to bus stand also, number of pieces of bricks and stones were found. As per this panchnama, on surrounding area of the complainant’s house, number of bricks and stones were found. Number of bricks and stones were also found near Shibhai chowk situated 300 mtrs away from the complainant’s house. On the southern side of the road leading to bus stand also, number of pieces of bricks and stones were found. As per this panchnama, on surrounding area of the complainant’s house, number of bricks and stones were found. Number of bricks and stones were also found near Shibhai chowk situated 300 mtrs away from the complainant’s house. Houses of Hindus and Muslims were situated in Bhoivada Takri Fali, cross road to Shibhai chowk and surrounding places. This panchanama clearly shows that there were disturbances in the area and mob of both the communities had gathered trying to attack each other and trying to cause damage to the properties also. 17. The evidence of the complainant as well as the injured witness Sugarabibi is not found to be trustworthy. As per the evidence of Sugarabibi, there was no disturbance near her house nor was there any mob and suddenly police jeep was passing near her house and without any reason or cause, the accused under the influence of alcohol opened fire. 18. This fact is totally contradictory to the panchnama of scene of offence. The panchnama of scene of offence clearly shows that there was disturbance near the house of the complainant. 19. As per the evidence of P.W. No. 7, Anilkumar Ambalal Bhoi, Ex. 33, he went to the house of his cousin Suresbhai in Bhoivada to attend a house warm ceremony. He has deposed that Nuri Mazjid is near to Bhoivada. As it was a holy month of Ramzan, namaz was being performed by Muslims. When people including Muslims, who came to attend the ceremony were taking dinner, suddenly from Nurimazjid side, stone pelting had started and hence, Muslims people left dinner party and after one hour, stone pelting started from Bhoivada area as there was a mob coming from Nurimazjid area. He has further deposed that in the said pelting of stones, people of Bhoivada also received injuries and only on arrival of police, mobs were disbursed. The evidence of this witness further shows that he came to know that mob of Muslim people went towards Brahmanvada and thereafter on hearing the noise of firing, he learnt about the death of a Muslim person in the incident. 20. Evidence of the aforesaid P.W. No. 7 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. No. 6, Parvatsinh Kalubhai Damor at Ex. 20. Evidence of the aforesaid P.W. No. 7 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. No. 6, Parvatsinh Kalubhai Damor at Ex. 32, who was performing his duty as an unarmed Police Constable in Santrampur Police Station. As per his evidence, when he received wireless message that near cross road Bhoivada, riots took place between Hindus and Muslims, he along with PSI Bhabhor (accused) came in jeep in Bhoivada area and found that from the areas of Nurimazjid and Bhoivada, stone pelting was going on. He has further deposed that in order to disburse the mob, PSI Bhabhor opened fire from his revolver and as PSI instructed him to open fire, he also opened fire. As per his evidence, during the incident, as people of mob were pelting stones, he and other police personnel also received injuries. The jeep was also damaged and its driver sustained injuries. 21. This Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of both these witnesses and it appeared that there was riots between Hindu and Muslims and firing had taken place. It also appeared that in stone pelting, accused as well as other police officers sustained injuries. This is proved through the medical evidence. It further appeared that if firing was not resorted to, there were all possibilities of loss of lives and damage to the properties. 22. On a minute evaluation of the oral evidence of witnesses and taking into consideration the panchnama of scene of offence together with other documents, trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that to control the mob of Hindu and Muslim communities, incident in question took place. It is established that firing was done while passing through a jeep near the house of the complainant but firing had taken place from northern side of Shibhai chowk and bullet came 8-9 feet above from northern side of Shibhai chowk and dashed with the steel bar causing fatal injuries to deceased Mustaq and injuries to Sugarabibi as pieces of bullets hit and entered into their bodies. It was rightly held by the trial Court that if firing was done by a person sitting in the jeep, then there would not be any remotest possibility of dashing the bullet with the steel grill situated two and half feet below the door of the gallery. It was rightly held by the trial Court that if firing was done by a person sitting in the jeep, then there would not be any remotest possibility of dashing the bullet with the steel grill situated two and half feet below the door of the gallery. It was also rightly held by the trial Court that bullet had dashed above 20- with the steel bar of door and not below 2'-4' of the steel bar which shows that firing was not done from the jeep and hence, the story putforward by the complainant and witnesses is not believable. 23. As per the evidence of the complainant, accused was under the influence of alcohol and without any cause, he opened fire. Medical Officer, Santrampur, who issued certificate and who examined PSI Bhabhor on 4-2-1996 at about 3.30 p.m. in Government Hospital found that the accused was not under the influence of alcohol and a certificate to that effect was also issued. It was rightly held by the trial Court that while discharging duty, if firing was done by the accused, then also, before framing charge, sanction under Section 197, CrPC being mandatory was required to be obtained. It was also held that since no sanction under Section 197 was obtained to prosecute the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty for want of sanction from competent authority. 24. In the entirety of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and has rightly acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit. Since the said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not appear to be unjust, improper or illegal, same is not required to be interfered with in this revision. Hence, this revision is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.