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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
