Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 308 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Modhsinh Kuvarsinh Vaghela

2025-03-21

PRANAV TRIVEDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : (PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) [1] The present revision application is filed by the applicant - State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014 by the learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court"), wherein the appeal preferred by the State was rejected and the accused came to be acquitted from the offences leveled against them. [2] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the complainant, namely Shantaba Balwantsinh Vaghela had filed a complaint on 26.06.2013, which was registered as C.R.No.I-68/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). The allegations leveled against the accused were that there was an altercation between the present applicant and the complainant, during which injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. In view of the same, offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC were leveled against the applicant herein. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the investigating officer had concluded the investigation and filed the charge- sheet before the trial court. Pursuant to filing of the charge- sheet, a criminal case was registered before the learned trial court as Criminal Case No.4989 of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") by way of judgment and order dated 17.06.2014 had acquitted the respondent by giving the benefit of doubt. [2.1] Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned trial court, the State preferred an appeal before the sessions court, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014. The learned sessions court, by way of the impugned order dated 22.06.2017, has rejected the appeal preferred by the State and confirmed the acquittal granted by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, the State has preferred the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code. [3] Though Rule has been served upon the respondent, no one remained present on behalf of the respondent. [4] Heard Mr. [3] Though Rule has been served upon the respondent, no one remained present on behalf of the respondent. [4] Heard Mr. Pranav Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State. Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has granted the benefit of acquittal mainly on the ground that there was no independent eye-witness of the incident. It ought to have been considered by the learned courts below that the incident had occurred at 6 O'clock in the morning and there was no possibility of presence of the independent eye-witnesses at that point of time. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned courts below ought to have considered the deposition of PW 4, namely Sonalba Balwantsinh Vaghela which is below Exhibit 15' and the deposition of PW 5, namely Kanuba Balwantsinh Vaghela which is below Exhibit 16', who were present at the scene of offence, engaged in farming work at the time of the incident. [4.1] Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the learned courts below ought to have considered the deposition of the PW 9, namely Dr. Hareshkumar Gadhiya, wherein the complainant narrated the medical history. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since the depositions of the witnesses and the doctor are corroborative in nature, the same ought to have been considered by the learned courts below. In wake of such submission, Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed to grant the prayers as made in the present revisions application and quash and set aside the order passed by the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court. [5] Heard Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that both the courts below have given concurrent findings that there is no specific evidence with regard to the incident. As there was no evidence, it was further observed that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the land in question and there may be a possibility of giving false compliant to pressurize the complainant. As there was no evidence, it was further observed that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the land in question and there may be a possibility of giving false compliant to pressurize the complainant. The courts below also observed that the depositions at Exhibit 15' and Exhibit 16' of the witnesses are the daughters of the complainant and there are contradictions in their testimonies. It was further observed that the credibility of both the witnesses cannot be established as there were variations and major contradictions. It was further observed that the courts below noted that even the witnesses at Exhibit 18' and Exhibit 19' are not eye-witnesses. Therefore, there are concurrent findings regarding the appreciation of evidence by both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. It is a settled law that in revision application, it is impermissible for the revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence which has already appreciated by learned trial court as well as the appellate court. Only in cases where perversity is sought to be prescribed by the advocate with regard to the evidences on record then only it would be possible to go into the deliberation of the evidences. In the instant case, Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was not able to point out any perversity in the findings of order of the learned trial court and the learned appellate court as well as the evidence recorded by the courts below. [6] The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code is a limited jurisdiction exercisable if the court below has committed a manifest illegality or the findings are perverse and based on misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. The principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr.P.C. were highlighted in D. Stnbens Vs Nosibolla [ 1951 SCR 284 ] as also in K.C. Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [ 1963 SCR 412 ] . In State of Maharashtra Vs Jag Mohan Sing Kuldip Sing Anand and others [(2004) 7 SCC 659] , the Apex Court reiterated that the revisional power of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised as a second appellate power and that the High Court cannot, while exercising the revisonal power, undertake in-depth and minute re-examination of entire evidence and upset concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court. [7] Keeping in view the parameters for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it could not be said that the orders passed by the courts below and the concurrent findings arrived at, were not proper. They were factual in nature. There was no material error or irregularity in recording concurrent findings by the courts below. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not show any ground so as to persuade the Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. [8] In view of the above, there are no merits in the present revision application and accordingly, is dismissed as meritless. Rule is discharged.