Gujarat High Court
Yasminbanu Usmangani Sharifjiwala vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1554/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1554
of 2023
==========================================================
YASMINBANU USMANGANI SHARIFJIWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.MINHAJ M SHAIKH(6847) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
By way of present revision under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the org.
complainant challenges the judgment and order dated
14-08-2023 passed by Principal Judge, City Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.409/2019 confirming the
acquittal of the accused rendered vide order dated 8.4.2019
passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad,
in Criminal Case No.379/2013.
2. The facts of the present case are as under:
2.1. The complainant lodged FIR alleging that opponent No.1 by
keeping grudge against the complainant for the court cases
initiated by the complainant against the opponents, manhandled
the complainant and also slapped her on 17/03/2013 at around
02:00 pm near Jamalpur Char Rasta. near Shifa Hospital. It is
also alleged that the opponent No.2 caught hold of the hands of
the complainant and opponent No.1 hurled expletives and
threatened the complainant for her life. The complainant
therefore, lodged a FIR with Danilimda Police Station being II-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1554/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
C.R. No.3070/2013 for the offences under Secs 323, 294(B),
506(1), 114 of the LP.C.for offense under sections 143, 379,447,
294 (b) and 506 (2) of IPC.
2.2 The said case has culminated in Criminal Case
No.2477/2018 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palanpur. The trial was conducted. At the end of the trial, the
accused respondents were acquitted by the order dated 8-4-2019
passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad.
2.3 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant had preferred
Criminal Appeal before the Principal District, Judge, Ahmedabad
which has dismissed the appeal while confirming order of the
trial court and therefore present revision is filed.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that
learned Sessions Court has not considered the evidence in its
true perspective as the injury certificate is not produced by the
IO during the course of trial which has resulted into acquittal of
the accused. He would further submit that learned trial court
has not appreciated the evidence in true and letter spirit and
therefore present revision may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned APP on the other hand submitted to pass
necessary order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
gone through the impugned orders of the Courts below, it
appears that the trial Court has succinctly recorded the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1554/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
produced before it and appellate Court has also rightly re-
appreciated the same and No error can be said to have been
committed by the Courts below in arriving at the conclusion. The
relevant observations made in paragraph 7 of the judgment of
the appellate Court reads thus:
"7. On re-appreciation of the above referred evidence of the
osecution, it appears to this Court that there is material contradiction
in the evidence of the complainant and her brother. The evidence
given by the complainant and the evidence of her brother, is not
corresponding and is not in consonance interse. Moreover, the
Investigating Officer has arrested the accused much later in point of
time after registering the FIR on 17/03/2013 on which date the
statements of all the witnesses have been recorded The accused
persons are arrested after recording the statements of witnesses.
Pursuant to the arrest of the accused, it appears that neither any
further investigation is carried out nor the statements of nearby
shopkeepers are recorded. Moreover, the panchnama of the scene of
offence is also not drawn. Thus, the Investigating Officer has carried
out faulty and improper Investigation. Moreover, the complainant has
failed to specity the exact nature of expletives hurled at her by the
opponent No. 1. Furthermore, one more witness being one Ashif
Ganibhai who has been examined on record. has been declared
hostile and he does not support the case of the prosecution either in
his chief examination or in his cross examination. It appears to this
Court that there is exaggeration in the evidence of prosecution that
what has been stated during the investigation, which makes the
evidence of prosecution unacceptable. This Court is of the opinion
that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to lead acceptable evidence and thereby
recorded acquittal of the accused persons, and this court after re-
appreciation of evidence, is in concurrence with the findings and
conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1554/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
6. To be noted that, this Court under the revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
has very limited power to interfere with the findings of the
learned Courts below as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill Versus State Of
Chhattisgarh [2022 (8) SCC 204]. Paragraph 8 reads thus:
"8. Heard Mr. Awanish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Sourav Roy, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Chhattisgarh and perused the record. Before adverting to the merits
of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are
concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after
detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.
The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not
supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and
the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397
of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and
as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The
object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be
determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that
while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at
length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those
findings."
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned
Courts below. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
