JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 2. This Revision Application has been initiated pursuant to direction in judgment and order dated 8.3.2006 in Special Civil Application No.3133 of 1994 between Oilabhai M. Vasava v. State of Gujarat wherein paragraph Nos.7 and 8 are relevant which reads as under: “7. In the above facts and circumstances, since the petitioner is not even alleged to be a hardened criminal or criminal offender and since death of his father was ex facie caused by an atrocious act of violence, without the details of which charge-sheet against the accused could not have been filed, and since the respondents were required to find that in an ? immediate enquiry? and had admittedly failed in doing so, the petitioner was entitled to the assistance envisaged by the aforesaid Government Resolutions dated 16.10.1982 and 4.5.1991. The un-consolable delay in reaching out to the victim and denying assistance at the time when it was most needed, also entitles the petitioner to receive the amount with interest and costs. It is also necessary, and in the interest of justice, to have the judgment of the Sessions Court, Bharuch camp at Rajpipla in Special Atrocity Case No. 64 of 1993, reviewed by this Court in exercise of its Suo motu power of revision under the provisions of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order, the sum of rupees one lakh with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006. In case of further delay in payment, the total amount of compensation and interest incurred till 31.3.2006 shall carry penal interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Out of the total amount payable to the petitioner under this judgment, the sum of Rs. 60,000/shall be paid to the petitioner by cheque in his name and the remaining amount shall be deposited in a post office monthly income scheme for such term and in such post office as may be suggested by the petitioner. 60,000/shall be paid to the petitioner by cheque in his name and the remaining amount shall be deposited in a post office monthly income scheme for such term and in such post office as may be suggested by the petitioner. A copy of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Special Atrocity Case No. 64 of 1993 shall be placed along with the copy of this judgment before the Court taking up criminal revision applications for appropriate orders.” 3. Pursuant to such direction, the Registry has initiated such Revision Application as Suo Motu Revision by this Court considering that the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 t 5 by impugned judgment delivered in November, 1997 in Special Atrocity Case No.64 of 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch results into material irregularity and illegality. 4. It is undisputed fact that such Special Civil Application was filed by son of the victim against the State for compensation wherein while awarding the compensation, the Court has felt that there is material irregularity/illegality in judgment by the Sessions Court and, therefore, pursuant to powers vested under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) the order is required to be scrutinized in such Revision Petition. 5. It is also undisputed fact that in such Sessions case, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein were accused. However, at present, probably respondent no.2 is no more but in absence of appropriate evidence to confirm such fact, it would be difficult to confirm his status. However, when there is disclosure as back as on 6.1.2016 by learned APP that they want time to get Death Certificate of respondent No.2, there is reason to believe that probably respondent no.2 may not be alive. 6. Though minute factual details are avoided to be discussed for the simple reason that matter is required to be remanded back to the Sessions Court for reconsideration, basic facts of the case may be recollected as under: 6.1 The respondent Nos.2 to 5 were tried by the Sessions Court, Bharuch at camp Rajpipla in Special Atrocity Case No.64/1993 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (For short `the IPC') read with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as `Atrocity Act'). 6.2 The case of the prosecution in such Atrocity case is to the effect that one Aliabhai Mahijibhai Vasava, who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No.3133/1994 wherein direction to initiate Suo Motu revision is passed, has lodged a complaint on 30.8.1992 that on 25.8.1992, his father was beaten by respondent nos.2 to 5 near Aamletha Gate in Ranipura village and when he reached there, he saw the respondent Nos.2 to 5 beating his father with rifle and sticks and when his father had fallen down, respondents have taken him into lock up custody and locked it and after half an hour, they have taken his father to Rajpipla and though he had chased them, except confirmation of presence of higher officers, he could not know anything about his father but on next day, police has chased him into their village and conveyed his family member that Mr. Maijibhai has died and, therefore, his dead body is to be accepted by his family member. Therefore, he has managed to collect the dead body of his father and do the last rituals. 6.3 However, considering the fact that his father has died because of beating by respondent Nos.2 to 5 who were serving in Police and Home Guard departments, he has lodged a complaint being FIR No.278/1992 under Sections 302 and 114 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act. However, it is the case of the respondents as their defence that in fact, there was a complaint against Maijibhai and, therefore, when they went at Ranipura village to arrest him, he has tried to escape and started fighting with them and beaten them and, therefore, they have given the blow of rifle to the victim but while escaping from the place, he had fallen down on the floor and got injuries on head and when he complained about the pain after arrest, he was taken to Rajpipla where he was found dead. 6.4 After investigation, police has filed complaint against respondent Nos.2 to 5 and trial was conducted wherein by impugned judgment, Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch has acquitted all of them by giving benefit of doubt. 7. 6.4 After investigation, police has filed complaint against respondent Nos.2 to 5 and trial was conducted wherein by impugned judgment, Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch has acquitted all of them by giving benefit of doubt. 7. If we peruse the Oral as well as Documentary evidence including Further Statement by the respondents before the Sessions Court which is at page No.157 of paper book, it becomes clear that the Sessions Court has given benefit of doubt to the respondents probably because of the fact that they were serving in Police and Home Guard departments and only because two witnesses and one another witness has got hostile. However, Sessions Court has failed to realize that at least two witnesses including complainant have specifically supported the case of the prosecution against the respondents and more particularly respondents themselves have given a written reply during their statement under Section 313 of the CR.P.C. as an additional statement in writing with their signature and not only admitting the incident but also complaint by the complainant that they have beaten the victim by rifle. Though an attempt is made in such reply and during hearing before this Court that it was only because victim was fighting with them and tried to escape from them and when caught hold of, one of the accused by biting him from his teeth and, therefore to detach the victim from the accused, the other accused had given a blow by rifle. Therefore, though this act of beating by rifle may be tried to be pleaded as self defence, it does not properly prove that their act is only on account of self defence. 8. On the contrary, such admission makes it clear that incident has taken place as alleged by the complainant and prosecution and that there was a Custodial Death of the victim. It is also clear from the record that though defence of Self Defence is available to everyone including Police authorities on duty, the responsibility and liability of respondents being Police Officers is much more than other persons, more particularly, while taking shelter of exercise of Self Defence, inasmuch as, even during Self Defence, there should not be blow on vital part of the body like head by blow with hard substance or by sharp edged instrument or by fire arms. Therefore, if death is caused by injuries on head and if there was a blow on head by rifle by any of the accused, then, there is direct nexus between death and act of the accused and to that extent the admission by the respondents would certainly go against them and they may not be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt as done by the Sessions Court by impugned judgment. 9. One another aspect is also very much clear that even if there was beating for Self Defence and thereby even if that may be excluded from consideration as punishable offences, one thing is certain that if there is grievous injuries on vital part of the body, then, it is duty of the respondents being Police Officers to initially and immediately shift such person to nearest hospital for immediate treatment rather than taking him in lock up i.e. Police custody and to continue interrogation immediately. If respondents would have taken such care to see that proper medical treatment is extended to the victim immediately after such incident then probably life of the victim could have been saved and to that effect at least there is negligence on the part of the respondents in not handling the accused properly. Therefore, if there is no scope of conviction under Section 302 of the Code, the trial Court should have verified the probability of conviction for lessor punishment under appropriate provisions of IPC, even by adding the charges under such Section instead of extending a benefit of doubt by sitting idle during trial. 10. I have reason to say so because as already recorded hereinabove that in fact there is admission by the accused regarding incident and their act of beating the victim during such incident. Therefore, when there is admission of incident and, thereafter, when there is Custodial Death, the impugned order certainly requires to be quashed and set aside and Sessions case is required to be remanded back to the Sessions Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with above observation for consideration of lessor punishment under appropriate provision of law if at all punishment under Section 302 of the Code is unwarranted. For such reason, when matter requires to be remanded back, now, it would not be appropriate to discuss all the evidence which would otherwise prejudice either side. For such reason, when matter requires to be remanded back, now, it would not be appropriate to discuss all the evidence which would otherwise prejudice either side. Therefore, I have avoided to discuss all other evidence in detail except confirming that the trial Court should reexamine the evidence and should consider that whether charges for lessor punishment under appropriate Section can be framed against the respondents or not and after considering over all evidence whether appropriate punishment can be awarded to the respondents/accused. For the purpose, matter requires to be remanded back. 11. Hence, this petition is allowed whereby impugned judgment delivered in November, 1997 in Special Atrocity Case No.64 of 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch is hereby quashed and set aside. However, respondents were acquitted by such judgment, matter requires to be remanded back to the Sessions Court and hence Sessions Court is directed to reconsider the evidence and other material on record to verify and to take appropriate steps for awarding sentence in accordance with law and lessor punishment to respondents after extending reasonable opportunities to them to defend such situation. For securing their presence, trial Court may issue notice/summons/warrant against them. If any respondent has died in between or declared dead, proceedings against him may be dropped. 12. With the above observation, this application is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute to that extent.