Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dehrubhai Jesabhai Jograna on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 489 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEHRUBHAI JESABHAI JOGRANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision application is preferred by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar camp at Botad in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2011 whereby the conviction handed down by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Gadhda, vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2011 in Criminal Case No.167 of 2004, convicting original accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 under the provision of Sections 323 and 114 of the IPC and sentenced them to six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, one month SI and also convicted original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 under the provisions of Sections 325 and 114 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, three months SI, has been turned down and the accused have been acquitted of all the charges.
2. The facts, in a nutshell, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that on 22/01/2004, while the complainant, and his cousin brother, and his father were doing agricultural work in the field, at that time, the accused persons were also present with their cattle and were grazing, as they had come in the field of the complainant, Ramabhai asked them and in response thereto accused started abusing them and thereafter, again Ramabhai had asked not to abuse, however, accused got Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined excited and Jesabhai who was armed with an axe, gave one blow on the head of Kamabhai, whereas Bijal Dana armed with stick gave blow on back and Jesabhai armed with Dhariya gave blow on head of Ramabhai. At that time, Jagabhai Bhikhabhai Bharvad had also come and he gave one stick blow to Ramabhai on his head. As the father of injured had come, he tried to intervene and accused also threatened him that if he say something then he will be facing the same consequence. After some time, Jinabhai Boghabhai and Katabhai Jelabhai also come and started beating. Thus, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 325, 324, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. The complainant, having received injuries, was admitted in the Hospital and lodged complaint. The complaint was registered, the offence was investigated, and chargesheet was filed.
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
4. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat submitted that the order passed below Exh.9 by the learned Judge is ex- facie illegal, arbitrary and failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The learned appellate court has not evaluated the evidence of the witnesses in correct and proper perspective. The appellate court failed to consider the evidence of the complainant who had deposed in his testimony regarding the manner in which the incident has occurred, with the role attributed to each of the accused along with the nature of weapon and injuries inflicted by them. The learned Appellate Judge ought to have considered the evidence of Doctor before whom the history of inflicting injuries with an axe, dhariya, and stick were informed. That the appellate court has failed to consider that from the deposition of the complainant, the contents of the complaint gets collaborated and complainant had also sustained fractured. Thus, the evidence is not appropriately re- appreciated by the Appellate Court. That the Appellate Court has failed to consider that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the learned Trial Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Court, and thus, reversing the judgment of conviction by the Appellate Court was erroneous. Thus, it is argued to allow the present revision application.
5. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the State. Perused the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No.167 of 2004 dated 28.06.2011 and the judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2011 dated 28.01.2013.
6. At the outset, the principles governing scope of revisional jurisdiction as held in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 are required to be considered which are as under:-
"Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
7. Thus, It is well-settled position of law that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 397 of CrPC) is to be exercised sparingly and only on specific Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined grounds that when the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is non-compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or jurisdiction is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Though, these grounds are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, emphasizing the need for a well- founded error to justify interference. Thus, the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not to re- appreciate evidence or arrive at a different conclusion even if a different view is possible. Thus, the legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by the Court is the foundation of exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC which ultimately requires justice to be done.
8. Now, reverting to the present case, while appreciating the submissions of learned APP, it is apposite to refer to the observations of the learned Appellate Court recorded in the impugned judgment under challenge, more particularly, in paras 11 to 25 wherein the appellate court has recorded various inconsistencies in the testimony of the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined injured as well as eye-witnesses with regard to the weapon by which the injury was inflicted on the complainant as well as the injured persons, whereas in the depositions of complainant and eye-witnesses with regard to infliction of injury and weapon utilized, the injury certificate of the injured witnesses and the complainant creates doubt as to where the complaint was lodged as recorded in para 16 of the impugned judgment alleged history given by Ramabhai and whether Ramabhai was in a position to lodge the complaint is also recorded in para 17 of the judgment. Thus, creating serious doubt in the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The wife of the complainant Maniben is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. Similarly, Hanubhai is not supporting the case of the prosecution, Vasrambhai is also not supporting the case of the prosecution and other lacunas are also recorded by the appellate court. The finding at para 23 with regard to the credibility of the deposition of Dr. Dineshbhai Shah is also recorded which shakes the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
9. Thus, the learned appellate court, upon appreciation of both oral as well as documentary evidences, cannot be said to have acted beyond its jurisdiction in taking into consideration the depositions of the eye- witnesses and the injured witnesses, including the complainant. Thus, the conceptuses of all the facts, evidence and the reasoning by the learned appellate court establish that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned appellate court. The impugned order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the law applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a glaring defect in following the procedure or manifest error on the point of law or non-consideration of any relevant evidence resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. Thus, the petitioner has failed to justify interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/489/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC.
10. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Application fails and the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) H.M. PATHAN Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by H.M. PATHAN(HC00167) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 22:31:22 IST 2025