Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 175 (GUJ)

Sanjay Vinodkumar Bediyawala v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-27

PRANAV TRIVEDI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present revision application is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Ld Judge Court no.15, City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sessions Court' for short) below Criminal Appeal No. 299/2013, wherein the appeal preferred by the State has been partly allowed and the present revisionist-applicants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and have been directed to pay fine of Rs. 1500/- each. 2. The facts which led to filing of the present application are as under: 2.1 The marriage between appellant no.1 and complainant was solemnized on 7.10.2004 at Ahmedabad. Pursuant to the marriage, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and pursuant to the disputes, by way of dissolution dated 31.5.2005, the marriage between applicant No.1 and the complainant was duly dissolved. Even pursuant to the dissolving of marriage, there were disputes between the family of both the sides and the present applicants had filed complaint on 1.6.2005 against the father of the complainant and other family members, which has resulted into Criminal Case No. 1178 of 2007. During the pendency of the said dispute, the complainant who earlier happened to be wife of applicant No.1, on 25.10.2007 had gone with her mother to attend Criminal Case filed by the applicants before the concerned Court. 2.2 It was alleged that the present revision applicants threatened the complainant and gave slaps to the complainant while they were returning from hearing of Criminal Case No. 1178 of 2007. This resulted into filing of First Information Report (FIR) before the Meghaninagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present revision applicants. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, charge-sheet came to be filed on 19.11.2007 and thereafter criminal case was registered which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 3227 of 2007 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.3, Ahmedabad. (hereinafter referred to as 'Chief Metropolitant Court'). Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, charge-sheet came to be filed on 19.11.2007 and thereafter criminal case was registered which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 3227 of 2007 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.3, Ahmedabad. (hereinafter referred to as 'Chief Metropolitant Court'). 2.3 The learned Chief Metropolitan Court after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and all the material evidence on record, duly came to the conclusion that there are no independent witnesses and pursuant to perusal of other material, was pleased to acquit the present revision applicants by order dated 13.8.2013 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court in Criminal Case No. 3227 of 2007 whereby the present revision applicants were acquitted, the complainant preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court. The appeal came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2013. After hearing learned advocates for both the sides and perusing the material on record, the learned Sessions Court by order dated 27.8.2014 was pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court No.3, Ahmedabad and was further pleased to convict the present revisions applicants for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all the applicants have been directed to pay fine of Rs.1500 each. Being aggrieved by order of conviction as well as the fine, the present revision application is preferred by the revision applicants. 4. Heard Mr. Tarak Damani, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicants and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. It was submitted by Mr. Tarak Damani, learned advocate for the revisionist-applicants that the learned Sessions Court has failed to take into consideration that there were various complaints filed by the parties against each other and the applicant No.1 had already filed in prior point of time, complaint against the father of complainant. Therefore, present complaint has been filed by the complainant, which is in question in present proceedings, solely with a view to harass the present revision applicants and to retaliate against complaint filed against them. Therefore, present complaint has been filed by the complainant, which is in question in present proceedings, solely with a view to harass the present revision applicants and to retaliate against complaint filed against them. It was further submitted that there is no genuinity of independent witness and all the witnesses are related witnesses which is categorically observed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court. All the witnesses had given their statements only with a view to help the complainant and the witnesses were not police witnesses but they had come on the next day to help complainant. 6. It was also submitted by Mr. Damani that the fact is not disputed that the Investigation Officer was neighbour of the complainant and the learned Chief Metropolitan Court had taken cognizance of the same that the complaint was filed belated after 8 hours so that it can be registered during the time in which the concerned Investigating Officer who happens to be neighbour of the complainant, was on duty. Further, there being no witnesses, the related witnesses have come on the 2nd day just to help the complainant. The learned Sessions Court has failed to take into account such factual aspect and without giving any reason had gone on to convict the present applicants, which is nothing but perversity in the facts of the case. 7. It was also submitted by Mr. Damani that even looking to the deposition of the Investigating Officer, it can be borne out that the witnesses were not independent witnesses and they had come on the very next day. Therefore, from the fact of the case it can be borne out that the complaint was a counter attack to the earlier complaint filed by the revision-applicants and further there were no independent witnesses and no medical report. Further, deposition of the Investigating Officer affirms the case of revision-applicants. This was the reason that acquittal was granted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court and the learned Sessions Court had gone to convict the revisionist-applicant without giving any cogent reasons and, in view of the same the present application needs to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court needs to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that there are witnesses to the incident. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that there are witnesses to the incident. It may be true that there is no medical report but mere giving slaps to the complainant would not require a thorough medical check-up. There being independent witnesses at Exh-10, 19, 20 and 21, the learned Sessions Court has rightly convicted the present revisionist-applicant. Looking to the grievance of the offence, the learned Sessions Court has not gone on the given sentence to the revision-applicants but simply imposed fine to the tune of Rs.1500/- each. The applicants ought not to have been aggrieved by such fine. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to reject the present applicant. 9. I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court. The only reason that can be borne out or which is transpired by the learned Sessions Court while convicting the present revision-applicants and reversing the judgment of acquittal is that there were independent witnesses. If the list of independent witnesses is looked upon, they are either the relatives of the complainant or people known to the father of the complainant. Further, they have come on the very next day on their own volition to help the complainant. There is no independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer which can be clearly bought out from the testimony of the Investigating Officer. There are cogent reasons given by the the learned Chief Metropolitan Court while acquitting the present revision- applicants. The only reason given by the learned Sessions Court while reversing the acquittal is that there are independent witnesses which can counter effect the allegations of collusion between the complainant and the Investigating officer who happens to be neighbour. Therefore, the reason given by the learned Sessions Court while convicting the present revision-applicants is that there were allegations of Investigating Officer and the complainant being neighbours of each other, but the same can be discarded in view of fact that there were independent witnesses. However, when the so-called independent witnesses are relatives or known witnesses of complainant, then such a reason given by the learned Sessions Court would be unjust. However, when the so-called independent witnesses are relatives or known witnesses of complainant, then such a reason given by the learned Sessions Court would be unjust. Therefore, pursuant to the fact that the present complaint was filed in counter to the earlier complaint filed by the present revision-applicants and also the fact that the FIR was lodged after 8 hours to see to it that it comes at a time when the Investigating Officer, who was the neighbour of the complainant, was on duty and also the fact that the so-called independent witnesses were known witnesses or relatives of the complainant, the reasons given by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court cannot be discarded and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Court are non-germaine and perverse and contrary to the facts of the case. This Court is aware about the fact that there cannot be re-appreciation of the evidence but the factum that the whole theory as envisaged by the learned Sessions Court, is contrary to the evidence on record, then this Court deems it fit to quash and set-aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. 10. In view of the same, the present revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the learned Judge Court no.15, City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad below Criminal Appeal No. 299/2013 is quashed and set-aside and the judgment and order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Court in Criminal Case No. 3227 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. The present revision-applicants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the quashing of the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the learned Judge Court no.15, City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad below Criminal Appeal No. 299/2013. In view of the same, the present revision application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The connected Criminal Misc. Application (For Stay)No.1 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.