Bhaveshbhai Khodabhai Savaliya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18751 Guj

     R/CR.RA/895/2021                          ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 895 of 2021
                             With
  CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of
                             2021
                               In
    R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 895 of 2021
==========================================
            BHAVESHBHAI KHODABHAI SAVALIYA
                            Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================
Appearance:
SAN ASSOCIATES LLP(8655) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. C.M.SHAH, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                           Date : 24/12/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Since no arguable points are shown to the Court to interfere under revisional jurisdiction where the applicant is convicted for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo 02 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment which came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court, the Court would be slow in entertaining such revision application challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is confirmed by the Appellate Court as re- appreciation of evidence is not permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

2. Considering the fact that both the lower limbs of the victim were fractured by the applicant by 4 blows and as referred to in the

R/CR.RA/895/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021

judgment and order, the said evidence is also corroborated by the depositions of the victim as also the doctor.

3. Mr. Nilay Suchak, learned advocate for San Associates LLP submitted that though Gondal Hospital was nearest from the place of incident i.e. Village - Vasavad, there was no reason taking the injured to Amreli Hospital. However, referring to the judgment, it is clear that in a bullock cart the injured was taken to the Government Hospital of the village itself but since there is no doctor available, the injured was shifted in a jeep car to the hospital of Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Vaghasiya at Amreli, and he was treated as indoor patient there. At that moment no one would be in senses to go to nearest place and cannot be expected to react to that only. So long as nothing adverse for that reason found or brought on record cannot be a ground to disbelieve prosecution case.

4. Since spade was used as weapon of offence, the injuries are possible by the weapon and those injuries are also supported by the certificate issued by the treating doctor and his evidence.

5. Mr. Suchak, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that these injuries are possible by fall also while running. However, in the cross examination, no such question is asked but on the contrary, question is put to the witness which is answered in affirmative that if a person falls on pointed stone, injury No.1 is possible. However, there were total three injuries found by the doctor and according to opinion of the treating doctor, the injuries found on the injured person possible by spade, and therefore, in absence of any case pleaded and proved that injury is caused to the injured while falling on a pointed stone, that evidence cannot be discarded.

6. Drawing attention of the Court to the depositions, Mr. Suchak, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the history

R/CR.RA/895/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021

which was given by the victim, the doctor has recorded that, while working in the field, neighbor of adjoining field has caused injury with the axe. However, there is no much difference while injury caused with which weapon either axe or spade. However, while causing arrest of the applicant - accused he produced spade which was used in commission of offence and seized under a panchnama as deposed to by the investigating officer - Ramnikbhati Hemubharthi Gosai at exhibit - 29. Considering the fact that weapon of offence produced by the accused and as deposed to by the doctor that injuries found on the person of victim are possible by spade than weapon referred to axe in history before the doctor pales into insignificance.

7. Considering the nature of injury, which is possible by the spade used by the accused, when concurrent findings of two Courts are recorded thereon, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence only on that ground. When the deposition of victim himself is very clear about the accused and the weapon of offence and corroborated by evidence of doctor, the learned advocate for the applicant is unable to persuade this Court to take any different view thereof and I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court as there is no illegality or irregularity committed while delivering the decision. Hence, this revision application is rejected.

8. In view of rejection of main revision application, the connected Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai