Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai Maganbhai Bhoi vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 240
of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
ARVINDBHAI MAGANBHAI BHOI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR KEVAL DHOLAKIA for MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No. 1
MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 01/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
By way of present revision application, the revisionist applicant seeks to challenge the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge exercising power under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2015 has confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand in Criminal Case No. 4052 of 2009 and has acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the offences punishable under Section 365, 354, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined
2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application is that the revisionist applicant is the original complainant and he had filed First Information Report qua private respondent nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "respondents") alleging that the respondents had stopped the applicant and had caused injuries to the application and committed a loot to the tune of Rs.10,500/-. Pursuant to the lodging of the First Information Report, charge sheet came to be submitted and criminal case came to be registered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand being Criminal Case No. 4052 of 2009. After recording the plea of the original accused and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned trial Judge was please to acquit the respondents by judgment and order dated 05.01.2015.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.01.2015, the revisionist applicant preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which came to be numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2015. The appellate court by way of judgment and order dated 15.02.2016 also dismissed the appeal filed by the present revisionist applicant. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand as well as the appellate court, being Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, the present revision application is preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Keval Dholakia, learned advocate holding the brief for Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
- State and Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate for the respondent - accused.
5. The grounds urged while assailing the order passed by the appellate court was that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned appellate court has committed grave error in not properly appreciating the evidence and in particular, the medical deposition as well as the oral testimony of the injured eye witness. It was further submitted that looking to the medical certificate there is categorical description of the injuries. In view of the same and on wrong appreciation of the evidence, acquittal is granted to the respondents. Therefore, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted to grant the prayers as prayed in the application.
6. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent has taken this Court to the reasoning given in the order of the learned trial court as well Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined as the learned appellate court, and submitted that when there are concurrent findings, the jurisdiction of this Court would be limited and the same should be upheld. Having gone through the record, it appears that while deciding the Criminal Case No. 4052 of 2009, the learned trial Judge had taken into consideration the documentary as well as ocular evidences. The deposition of the complainant i.e. Arvindbhai Maganbhai Bhoi was recorded at Exhibit-22. The panch witnesses were examined below Exhibit-24 and Exhibit-26 respectively. The Doctor being the person who had given the treatment was examined below Exhibit-39 and the medical certificate was produced below Exhibit-41. The Investigating Officers were examined at Exhibit-47 and Exhibit-50. After taking into consideration the documentary evidence as well as the oral deposition of the witnesses, the trial Judge had given benefit of doubt to the respondents - accused.
6.1. On factual aspect it was categorically observed that the prosecution has failed to prove their case and there is a doubt over involvement of the respondents in the incident in question. Even, the appellate court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionist applicant has made categorical observation in paragraph '14' at page '58' of the paper book that taking into consideration the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined panchnama as well as the deposition of the witnesses, there is a situation where a doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to the correctness of the witnesses. It was further observed that the medical officer has made categorical statement that on examination of the injured witness, the marks with injuries were not found out. Doubt was also created with regard to testimony of the eye witness. In that view of the matter, the appellate court has come to the conclusion that benefit of doubt should be given to the respondents.
7. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 revisional power under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised as a second appellate power and while exercising the revisional power, there cannot be an in-depth and minute re-examination of the evidence.
8. Looking to the reasons given by the learned trial Judge as well as the appellate court, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that it would not be possible to give a finding that the order passed by the courts below and the concurrent findings arrived at were not Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/240/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined proper and in way perverse.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the present application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 02 22:13:47 IST 2025