JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision challenges judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2018, whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar has confirmed the judgment and order recorded by the learned JMFC, Valbhipur to acquit accused for the offences under sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 114 of IPC and section 135 of GP Act. 2. Fact of the case are as under :- 2.1. On 12.04.2013, at about 12.30 the accused no.1 – Alpeshbhai went to the house of complainant in drunk state, hence, mother of the complainant Savitaben told the accuse No.1 i.e. Alpeshbhai @ Pelu Himatbhai Rathod not to come to house after drinking alcohol, hence the accuse no. 1 started abusing Savitaben mother of the complainant and stabbed in forehead of savitaben with knife and at that time accuse Mukesh @ Munno came with axe and accuse Naresh came with Stick and Mukesh @ Munno gave blow with axe on head of complainant and witness and accuse Naresh cause injury to parents of complainant and in this matter by assisting one another and by illegally keeping the weapons the accused committed the offence and this sought of complaint was filed by the complainant with Valbhipur Police station, Valbhipur, District:- Bhavnagar vide CR No.1-21/2013 for Offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 326, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act. After the Complaint was filed against the accused the investigating officer filed charge sheet before the trial court and thereafter the accuses were tried for offences under Section 323, 324, 326, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and at the end of the Trial the accused were acquitted by judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur Dated 7-9-18. Hence being aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur the present petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018 before the 6th Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar but order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur Dated 7-9-18 in criminal Case No. 118 of 2013 came to be Confirmed by Learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar. Hence, present Revision Application. 3. Trial was conducted by the learned JMFC. After framing charge and leading evidence, plea was recorded by the learned Trial Court, whereby, accused pleaded not guilty. Trial was put for the evidence of prosecution. Hence, present Revision Application. 3. Trial was conducted by the learned JMFC. After framing charge and leading evidence, plea was recorded by the learned Trial Court, whereby, accused pleaded not guilty. Trial was put for the evidence of prosecution. In order to establish charge against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witness precisely Exh.34, 66, 80, 81, 91, 93, 95, 96, 101 and 103, out of which, Exh. 34, 66 and 91 are deposition of persons who are alleged to have received injury, rest of them are panchas or other witnesses. In total 9 documentary evidence were produced on record vide Exh.35, 94, 97, 102, 104 to 108. Further statement of the accused was recorded and after hearing both the sides, learned Trial Court believed that petitioner has failed to establish charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted accused. State has not preferred appeal against order of acquittal. But the complainant under section 372 of Cr.P.C. preferred appeal and appeal was registered before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. The appeal is heard thoroughly and ultimately, learned Sessions Judge did not find any merit in appeal and while confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders, complainant is before this Court by way of filing present Revision Application. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner – complainant. He would submit that Court below has committed serious error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that there three injured witnesses and they have deposed the incident. Their presence was not doubted and therefore, deposition of injured witnesses was required to be considered in true prospective by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. He would submit that learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused on technical grounds. It is submitted that Medical Officer is not examined nor Investigating Officer and that has miscarriage justice. Therefore, he submits to allow present Revision Application. 6. Learned APP in given facts and circumstances requested to pass necessary orders. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, I may refer to observation and finding given by learned JMFC while acquitting the accused. Para 14 and 15 are relevant. Therefore, he submits to allow present Revision Application. 6. Learned APP in given facts and circumstances requested to pass necessary orders. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, I may refer to observation and finding given by learned JMFC while acquitting the accused. Para 14 and 15 are relevant. They are translated in English for better understanding and reads as under :- “(14) Looking to the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is found that though summons was issued many times to the Investigating Officer through the D.S.P., the said Investigating Officer has not remained present before the Court even once and therefore, his deposition could not be recorded. There is clear contradiction in evidences on record such as complaint of the complainant, deposition of the complainant and depositions of the injured witnesses who were present at the time of incident as well as their cross-examination and though independent witnesses were available, they were neither mentioned nor examined as witnesses, who were important witnesses considering the manner and circumstances of the case. The complainant and witnesses have stated to have taken treatment in Sir T. Hospital, but treatment certificates of Sir. T. Hospital have not been produced. Such testimony is given that injured complainant and witness Chandubhai were smeared with blood, but the Investigator has not seized any such blood stained clothes in the case under investigation. It is mentioned in the certificate of Exh.106 of witness Chandubhai that when the Doctor inquired about the history, it was stated by witness Tinabhai that injury has been caused by sword. However, if the complaint of Exh.35 is read, no where it is mentioned that the accused persons were armed with sword. In addition, during the arrest panchnama, the Investigating Officer has also not seized any sword weapon from the accused. In the treatment certificate issued by Doctor Dijesh Shah, no name of any accused is mentioned in history of injury. Though, the witness Bhaveshbhai Narshibhai Meniya is the relative of complainant and witnesses Chandubhai and Savitaben, he has not supported the case of the Prosecution. Further, on perusal of record, it is found that though injuries were caused to the complainant and witnesses using weapons such as stick, knife, axe etc., neither any x-ray reports in this regard have been produced nor the certificate of radiologist has been enclosed. Further, on perusal of record, it is found that though injuries were caused to the complainant and witnesses using weapons such as stick, knife, axe etc., neither any x-ray reports in this regard have been produced nor the certificate of radiologist has been enclosed. On perusal of record, it is found that neither any notification is submitted in this case to indicate that notification of prohibition of arms was in force on 12/04/2013, nor any employee concerned has been examined by the Prosecution to indicate as to whether proper publication and propagation of this notification was done. Therefore, as the Prosecution has failed to prove that said notification was in force on the date of incident, contradiction appears in the evidence of the complainant and witnesses and as contradiction is also found in the allegations made by the complainant and the witnesses against the accused persons, there seems doubt in the complaint given by the complainant and the complaint becomes suspicious. “In Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003(3) JCC 1358 , it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India as under:- Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of “Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1957 SC 637 ] stated thus : It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:- “The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:- “The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.” In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 , it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:- Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to hos innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (15) Thus, looking to the overall facts, there is no evidence on record which would connect the accused with the offence and the evidence adduced seems suspicious. Ld. Adv. Mr. Badheka for the complainant has produced the judgments of Koyla Bhopa Premji v. State of Gujarat, Kalubhai Dhanabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2007(1) GLH 441 , Mohhamad Salim Ibrahim Kureshi v. State of Gujarat, Rupsinhbhai Punabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Munni Prasad v. State of Gujarat in support of his case. But, as the facts of those cases and facts of the case on hand are different, not a single authority is applicable in this case. Ld. Advocate for the accused has produced the judgment of State of Gujarat v. Vallabh Tapu Chavda and Others. While producing this authority, Ld. Advocate has stated that it is held in the said authority that when the Investigating Officer or independent witnesses are not examined in any case, the accused cannot be convicted in any circumstance and in the present case also, as neither the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness has been examined, it is requested to acquit and release the accused. Advocate has stated that it is held in the said authority that when the Investigating Officer or independent witnesses are not examined in any case, the accused cannot be convicted in any circumstance and in the present case also, as neither the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness has been examined, it is requested to acquit and release the accused. In addition, the judgment of Ratanlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 2007(3) Criminal Court Cases 290 is produced wherein it is held that, if x-ray of the injured is taken in the hospital and if the same is not produced in the Court by the Prosecution, then the accused can get benefit of the same. The Ld. Advocate of the accused has submitted the following judgments of the Hon’ble High Court in support of their case. It is held in judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in 2007(3) Criminal Court Cases 295 that, if no independent witness has corroborated the testimony of the complainant, the accused should get benefit of the same. It is held in the judgment of State of Gujarat versus Hasmukh @ Bhikha Gova Harijan that the responsibilities of Doctors have been fixed in medico-legal cases. When any incident has occurred and a person has sustained injury, it is the duty of the Doctor to write down the complete history of the incident and the names of the accused persons should be mentioned in the history. Such history should be recorded verbatim after inquiring to the witness. Thus, considering the principles established in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Courts and as argued by the Ld. Advocate that the case of Prosecution is not proved beyond doubt, I totally agree with the contention that the accused persons should be acquitted. Further, it is held in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anatarsing versus Madhya Pradesh reported in 1979 A.I.R. SC 1188 that when there are two probabilities in the case of Prosecution, one leading towards the conviction of the accused and other indicating that the accused persons are not guilty, then the probability in favour of the accused persons should be accepted and the accused should be given benefit of doubt. Considering this principle, the accused persons should be given benefit of doubt. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence of the complainant that accused no. Considering this principle, the accused persons should be given benefit of doubt. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence of the complainant that accused no. 1 caused injury to Savitaben on forehead using a knife and abused here and in the meantime, accused Mukesh @ Munno arrived with axe and accused Naresh arrived with stick and caused injuries to the complainant and his father on head by inflicting axe blows and accused Naresh caused grievous injuries to father and mother of the complainant and thereby colluded with one another. Thus, on the basis of the above facts, I hereby hold that the Prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that accused no.1 consumed liquor and went to the house of the complainant on last 12/04/2013 at 12.30 hours and as Savitaben – mother of the complainant told the accused no.1 not to come there after consuming liquor, quarrel took place and therefore, the accused no. 1 caused injury to Savitaben on forehead using knife and abused her and in the meantime, accused Mukesh @ Munno arrived with axe and accused Naresh arrived with stick and caused injuries to the complainant and his father on head by inflicting axe blows and accused Naresh caused grievous injuries to father and mother of the complainant and the accused persons colluded with one another and thereby, they committed punishable offence under section 323, 324, 326, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the G.P. Act. Hence, answer to issue no.1 is given in negative and the following final order passed regarding issue no.2.” 8. What appears from the reasons given by learned JMFC that there are inconsistency in deposition of two witnesses who are stated to be injured witnesses and this inconsistency in statement of the witness lead to deny sterlingness of the injured witness. It is further recorded by learned JMFC that no independent witnesses are cited in the charge-sheet nor their statement is recorded. Their requirement is necessary when inconsistency arise in deposition of two injured witnesses. It is further recorded by learned Sessions Judge that another injured witness – Savitaben as well as Chandubhai who are family members of the complainant have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Their requirement is necessary when inconsistency arise in deposition of two injured witnesses. It is further recorded by learned Sessions Judge that another injured witness – Savitaben as well as Chandubhai who are family members of the complainant have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. What further appears from the reasons given by the learned JMFC, that complainant and witnesses have taken treatment from Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar but did not produce any evidence nor it is called to produce. Deposition of complainant and witness have says that they received blood injury but there is no evidence on record to show that police has ever recovered clothes containing blood. History of one of the witness to Doctor states that injury was received by sword but FIR does not disclose. So in this way, learned Trial Court has recovered several loopholes in the case of the prosecution. When the matter reached to the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, very thorough analysis has been done by the learned Trial Court which can be noticed in para 16 of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2019. 9. According to this Court both the Courts below have not committed any error. In limited jurisdiction of Revision, the petitioner – complainant has failed to make out any case to interfere with concurrent findings. 10. I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill Versus State Of Chhattisgarh [ 2022 (8) SCC 204 ]. Para 8 is relevant which reads as under :- “8. Heard Mr. Awanish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sourav Roy, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh and perused the record. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.” 11. For the reasons stated above, the Revision Application is dismissed.