Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Gandabhai Daniya vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 848
of 2016
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI GANDABHAI DANIYA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P J YAGNIK(1004) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. At the outset, Mr. P.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for
the applicants states that applicant No.1 Bharatbhai
Gandabhai Daniya has passed away and he puts on record
the death certificate of applicant No.1. In view of the
same, present revision application is abated qua applicant
No.1.
2. Present revision application is preferred assailing
the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate Court') dated 5.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.
9 of 2016 which, inter alia, confirmed the judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
order dated 25.4.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 911 of 2012.
3. The facts which has resulted in filing of the present
revision application is that a complaint came to be lodged
before Limbdi Police Station being II C.R. No. 3098 of
2012 wherein as per the allegation of the complainant, on
3.10.2012 at about 5 p.m., when she was doing her
household work, at that time, original accused Nos. 1, 3
and 4 had come to her house and abused and beaten her.
The role attributed to the applicant No.2 was of abusing
the complainant by using improper words for his dis-
liking of the complainant. It was further stated that two
hours after the incident at around 7 p.m., applicant No.1
came to complainant's house and allegedly gave stick
blows to the complainant and her husband. Therefore,
pursuant to the incident dated 3.10.2012, a complaint
was lodged and thereafter, investigation came to be
concluded and charge-sheet came to be filed. Pursuant to
the filing of charge-sheet, criminal case was registered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
and charges were framed below Exh-4.
4. By way of judgment and order dated 25.4.2016,
accused No. 1 and 2 i.e. present revisionist-applicant Nos.
1 and 2 were convicted of offence punishable under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to
undergo six months simple imprisonment with additional
fine of Rs.500/- each. However, original accused Nos. 3
and 4 were released on probation while exercising power
under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated
25.4.2016 in Criminal Case No. 911 of 2012 , the present
revisionist-applicants preferred an appeal before the
learned appellate Court which came to be numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2016. On conclusion of the
appeal proceedings, the learned appellate Court, by order
dated 5.10.2016, dismissed the appeal preferred by the
revisionist-applicants and confirmed the judgment and
order dated 25.4.2016. This order dated 5.10.2016
confirming the order dated 25.4.2016 is assailed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
present revision application.
6. At the outset, Mr. P.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for
the revisionist-applicant submitted that the applicant
No.1 has passed away, the present revision qua applicant
No.1 is disposed of as having been abated. This factum is
also confirmed by Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor.
7. As far as the issue qua applicant No.2 is concerned,
the main allegations against her was being present at the
scene of offence at the first incident at 5 p.m. and abusing
the complainant by using improper words. At the outset,
Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the applicant states that
instead of going to the root cause of the issue, as the
allegations are mainly of oral abuse, this Court may give
the benefit of probation to applicant No.2.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court
may pass appropriate order granting benefit of probation
to the revisionist-applicant in the facts of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
case. It was also submitted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that as per instruction received from his
Officer, there is no antecedent against the present
applicant. In the present case, the revisionist-applicant is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code, which provides for maximum
punishment of 3 years. However, in the present case, the
applicant is inflicted with punishment of only 6 months.
The prosecution has accepted the verdict and there is no
question of enhancement in the present case. The case of
the punishment is of very trivial nature and there is no
injury sustained by the complainant as far as present
revisionist-applicant is concerned.
9. Thus, the facts and circumstances of this case are
sufficient to attract the benefit of probation in favour of
the revisionist-applicant. The judgment and order of
conviction and punishment dated 25.4.2016 passed by the
learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 911 of 2012 as
well as the judgment and order dated 5.10.2016 passed
by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2016
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
are hereby confirmed.
9. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant-
revisionist to undergo sentence of imprisonment at once,
he is directed to be released on probation of good
conduct on execution of bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Limbdi for good behaviour for a period of six
months. The applicant shall further furnish surety of
equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as
above. The applicant shall remain in supervision for good
conduct for the said period of six months and sentence
imposed on him as per the order impugned shall remain
suspended during that period. It is further directed that
in the event of any breach, he shall appear and shall be
required to receive the said sentence during such period
as may be directed by the Court.
With these observations and directions, the present
revision application stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute. Direct Service is permitted. Record &
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/848/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
Proceedings, if any, be sent back immediately to the
concerned Court.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
