JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. With consent of the learned advocate of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This revision application has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 on 08.07.2014, whereby, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and the said judgment and order was confirmed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 on 17.12.2016. 3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 3.1. That an FIR being I - C.R. No. 125 of 2004 was registered at Danta Police Station on 18.05.2004 by the original complainant Jethiben wife of Navalbhai Prajapti against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and after recording the statement of the necessary witnesses and drawing panchnama of the place of offence as also recovering a cricket bat, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta against the applicant, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004. 3.2 That after the applicant was arrested, he was released on bail and after the summons of Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 was duly served, the applicant-original accused appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta and a charge at Exh.3 was framed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. That the complainant was examined at Exh.26, witnesses Sureshdan Ambadan Gadhvi and Chetana Navabhai Prajapati were examined at Exh.34 and Exh.35 respectively, panch witness Narandan Kakaldan Gadhavi was examined at Exh.7, panch witness Sitarambhai Valjibhai was examined at Exh.36, panch witness Ravaji Jivaji was examined at Exh.38, Medical Officer Ujjavalkumar Mangilal Gupta was examined at Exh.47 and the investigating officer Gashesharam Kesharam was examined at Exh.39. The learned Magistrate, after considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, was pleased to acquit the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC but convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. 3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta on 08.07.2014, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Court at Palanpur. The learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur passed a judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 on 17.12.2016 and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the applicant has preferred the present revision application mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is illegal and erroneous and contrary to the provisions of settled principles of law. That the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record and the learned Courts have not considered the fact that the complainant has stated that she had received blows with a cricket bat on her back and the cricket bat broke but no injuries are shown on her back. That the alleged incident has occurred while the complainant and others were playing cricket but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, it has come on record that there was an enmity between the present applicant and the original complainant and the brother of the applicant had filed a case against the son of the original complainant and hence, the complainant had filed the complaint out of grudge against the applicant. That the Investigating Officer has not recovered any broken bat from the present applicant and the complainant has further stated that as the bat broke, the applicant took a stick and hit her on her elbow but no such stick has been recovered by the Investigating Officer. That the entire evidence has not been properly appreciated and the impugned judgments and orders are illegal and improper and must be quashed and set aside and the applicant be acquitted for the offences. 5. That the entire evidence has not been properly appreciated and the impugned judgments and orders are illegal and improper and must be quashed and set aside and the applicant be acquitted for the offences. 5. Heard the applicant in person and the learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent-State. 5.1 The applicant has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and particularly, the complaint, which is produced at Exh.27. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the applicant took a cricket bat and hit her on her neck and as the cricket bat broke, he took a stick, which was lying and hit her on the elbow and on her back and at that time, her daughter Chetnaben and neighbour Sureshdan came and saved her from further beatings. That the applicant had threatened to kill her and she had gone to the hospital for treatment. In her deposition, the complainant has reiterated these facts but during the cross-examination, she has admitted that the brother of the applicant has filed a criminal case against her son Govind. The complainant has also admitted that there is a dispute regarding a plot between her and the applicant. The prosecution has examined witness Sureshdan Gadhvi, but he has not entirely supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has examined witness Chetnaben, who is the daughter of the complainant The applicant has further argued that no broken bat has been seized by the Investigating Officer and the complainant has not named the applicant before the doctor even though she was known to him prior to the incident. That no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and even though, the alleged incident has taken place while the applicant and others were playing cricket, none of the neighbours or persons, who were playing cricket with the applicant have been examined as witnesses. That in the absence of the evidence of any independent witnesses, the learned Trial Court cannot convict the applicant as the medical evidence and the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he ought to have been acquitted for the said offences. 5.2. Learned APP Mr. That in the absence of the evidence of any independent witnesses, the learned Trial Court cannot convict the applicant as the medical evidence and the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he ought to have been acquitted for the said offences. 5.2. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent – State has stated that the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence of the complainant and the complainant has deposed all the facts of the complaint and the same is supported by medical evidence, which shows that there was a bruise and swelling on the right side of the neck and forearm of the complainant and hence, no inteference is required in the impugned orders. 6. On perusal of the entire evidence, it appears that the prosecution has examined the complainant at Exh.26 and the complaint is produced at Exh.27. The complainant has categorically stated that the applicant was playing cricket near her house and at that time, she was washing clothes and the cricket ball hit her so she came out and at that time, the applicant came abusing her and hit her with the cricket bat on her neck and as the bat broke, he took a stick, which was lying there and hit her on her elbow and back. The complainant has narrated the same facts in the examination-in-chief and has thereafter, stated that her daughter Chetnaben and neighbour Sureshdan Gadhvi came and saved her. That as per the case of the prosecution, the independent witness Sureshdan Gadhvi is an eye witness, who has seen the applicant hitting the complainant. 6.1. The independent witness Sureshdan Ambadan Gadhvi has been examined at Exh.34 and he has stated in the examination-in-chief that he was behind his house and at that time, he head some shouts from Jethiben’s house and when he went there, Jethiben was lying unconscious and he and Chetnaben Navabhai Prajapati, daughter of Jethiben, took Jethiben into her house. At that time, her husband Navalbhai Prajapati came and took her to the Government Hospital, Danta. The witness has stated that he had seen the applicant leaving Jethiben’s house with a cricket bat and when Jethiben regained consciousness, he inquired from her and she told him that the applicant had hit her with a bat. At that time, her husband Navalbhai Prajapati came and took her to the Government Hospital, Danta. The witness has stated that he had seen the applicant leaving Jethiben’s house with a cricket bat and when Jethiben regained consciousness, he inquired from her and she told him that the applicant had hit her with a bat. During his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that when he passed by, he saw Jethiben washing clothes but he has not narrated the facts in the statement before the police. The witness has categorically stated during the cross-examination that he has not seen the incident but came to know about the incident from others. As per the case of the prosecution, the witness is an eye witness but he has not supported the version of the prosecution as an eye witness and has during cross-examination clearly admitted that he has not seen the incident. Moreover, he has stated that he saw the complainant lying unconscious and he and Chetnaben Navalbhai Prajapati took her into the house which is not the case of the prosecution and the complainant has also not stated that she was unconscious. Hence, a highly exaggerated version has been brought on record by the witness, who has denied being an eye witness to the incident. 6.2. The prosecution has examined the daughter of the complainant namely Chetnaben at Exh.35 and she has supported the case of the prosecution. But, during her cross-examination, she has admitted that the brother of the applicant has filed a case on her brother Govind. 6.3. In the deposition of the panch witness Narandan Gadhvi at Exh.7, the panchnama of the place of offence has been brought on record at Exh.8 and the witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 6.4. As per the case of the prosecution, the bat has been recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the panch witness Sitarambhai, who has been examined at Exh.36 and Ravaji Jivaji Thakor, who has been examined at Exh.38 and the panchnama is produced at Exh.37. Both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have bee declared hostile and even during the cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing has come on record to support the case of the prosecution. Both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have bee declared hostile and even during the cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing has come on record to support the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the panchnama at Exh.37, it appears that the bat was seized from the applicant at that time of his arrest, but, it was not a broken cricket bat and was voluntarily produced by the applicant. 6.5. The Investigating Officer has been examined at Exh.39 ad he has narrated the details of the investigation and has stated that the accused has voluntarily produced the cricket bat, which was seized. The Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not recorded the statements of any neighbours. 6.6. The Medical Officer, who has treated the complainant, has been examined at Exh.47 and the injury certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh.48. The Medical Officer has stated that the complainant had come without police yadi with her relatives to the hospital to the hospital on 18.05.2004 at about 1.45 pm with assaulted injury by lathi at about 1.00 pm on 18.05.2004. The complainant had bruise and swelling on the right side of neck and right forearm and diffuse tenderness on the upper back. That the patient was referred to the General Hospital, Palanpur on her request. During cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he could not say has to how these injuries would occur and in the history, the complainant did not name the person, who had assaulted her and had stated that she was assaulted by a lathi. 7. From the entire evidence, as per the case of the prosecution on 18.04.2004 at about 1.00 pm, the applicant was playing cricket and the cricket ball hit the complainant and she had a verbal altercation with the applicant who took his bat and assaulted her on the neck and at that time, the bat broke and hence, he took a stick and hit her on her back and right elbow. Admittedly, the incident has taken place while the applicant and others were playing cricket and the applicant was not playing cricket alone but with may others but no independent witness has been examined to prove that the alleged incident had, in fact, taken place. Admittedly, the incident has taken place while the applicant and others were playing cricket and the applicant was not playing cricket alone but with may others but no independent witness has been examined to prove that the alleged incident had, in fact, taken place. From the evidence, it is also on record that the complainant and the applicant were known to each other and the brother of the applicant has filed a criminal case against the son of the complainant. But, when the complainant went for treatment, she did not name the applicant. Moreover, there is a major contradiction in the weapon alleged in the complaint and used by the applicant and as per the complaint and the weapon recovered during the investigation, the complainant has stated that she was hit on the neck with the cricket bat, which broke whereas in the medical history before the doctor, the complainant has stated she was assaulted by a lathi. It is also pertinent to note that no broken cricket bat or lathi has been seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. As per the case of the prosecution, the witness namely Sureshdan Gadhvi, who is an eye witness, has categorically stated that he has not seen the incident. That, in fact, the witness Sureshdan Gadhvi stated that the complainant was unconscious when he went there, whereas, no such fact has come out in the deposition of the complainant or her daughter witness Chetnaben. Even in the deposition, Witness No. 8, Dr. Ujjawal Gupta stated that the complainant has insisted to go for further treatment to the General Hospital, Palanpur and accordingly, she was referred to General Hospital, Palanpur at her request, but, thereafter, there is no evidence as to whether she had taken any treatment at General Hospital, Palanpur for the injury sustained by her. 8. As discussed above in the entire evidence, the complainant has stated that she was beaten by the cricket bat and the bat broke and then, the applicant took a stick, which was lying there and hit her with the said stick, but, during the entire investigation, no broken cricket bat or stick has been seized by the Investigating Officer. That during the investigation, one cricket bat was seized, which as per the evidence of the Investigating officer, was voluntarily given by the applicant at the time of his arrest. That during the investigation, one cricket bat was seized, which as per the evidence of the Investigating officer, was voluntarily given by the applicant at the time of his arrest. It is pertinent to note that as per the complainant, the incident occurred while the applicant was playing the cricket with other persons but the evidence of any of the independent witnesses, who were playing cricket, has not come on record. The only independent witness is Sureshdan Ambadan Gadhvi, who is neighbour of the complainant, has narrated a highly exonerated version stating that he found the complainant unconscious, whereas, the complainant did not say that she fell unconscious due to the assault by the applicant. As per the complainant, the said witness had saved her from further beatings and is an eye witness to the incident but the witness has categorically stated that he had not witnessed the incident and when he went there, the complainant was lying unconscious. The main contradiction is with regard to the weapon - broken cricket bat or stick used in the incident and as discussed above, no broken cricket bat has been seized by the Investigating Officer and no stick has also been seized during the investigation. 9. In view of the above discussion, when there are major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution and the oral evidence is not reliable as also not corroborated by independent witnesses even though they were available the order of conviction is not made out. That admittedly, there are disputes and litigations pending between the parties. There is also no clear medical evidence that the injury of the complainant could be inflected by a cricket bat, which was hit to such an extent that the cricket bat was broken. That the complainant was referred to the General Hospital, Palanpur for further treatment as per her wish but no evidence of treatment at the General Hospital, Palanpur is on record. The evidence on record cannot be said to be cogent, convincing and reliable and is contrary and therefore, there are no sufficient reason to convict the applicant. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that while dealing with a revision application the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited and the power can be exercised where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and where the proceedings are irregular. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that while dealing with a revision application the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited and the power can be exercised where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and where the proceedings are irregular. This Court can examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order to see that justice is done in accordance with recognized rules of Criminal Jurisprudence and that is the learned Trial Courts do not exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the power vested in them under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Courts or to prevent the miscarriage of justice. The revisional power enables a Court to correct a grave error and is purely discretionary and should be exercised only in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the instance case while exercising the power to satisfy this Court as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the finding, sentence and order of the learned Trial Courts glaring features with regard to appreciation of evidence as discussed above have been brought to the notice of this Court and the same would tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. As discussed above, the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Court is without properly considering the evidence on record and without applying the principles of law correctly and the same amounts to perverse and illegal appreciation of evidence resulting into gross miscarriage of justice. 11. In the result, the present revision application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur on 17.12.2016 confirming the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta dated 08.07.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside and the applicant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The fine, if any, paid by the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant. Rule made absolute.