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.
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
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
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
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
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
