[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rabari Jetha Lakhmanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/932/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO.
932 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RABARI JETHA LAKHMANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIF A GHANCHI(6488) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RUTIKA M SHETHWALA(7826) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] When the matter is called out today, neither the applicant nor
learned advocate for the applicant is present. Even on the earlier
dates fixed in the matter, none had remained present on behalf of the
applicant. Therefore, it clearly appears that the applicant is not
interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taj Mohammad v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal
No.2421 of 2023, this Court has considered the averments made in
the application as well as the material placed on record and has
proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant or learned
advocate for the applicant based on available material on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/932/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
[2.0] By way of the present application, the applicant has assailed the
judgment and order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Patan in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2009 whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal
upholding and confirming the order passed by the learned JMFC,
Radhanpur in Criminal Case No.322/1990, whereby the learned
Magistrate had been pleased to acquit the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325,
452, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and
section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
[3.0] It appears from the record that after re-appreciating the
evidence produced on record, learned Sessions Judge come to the
conclusion that the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the
evidence and in absence reliable evidence on record and in absence of
corroborative piece of medical evidence, learned Magistrate has
properly appreciated the evidence and considering that at the time of
deciding appeal, more than 29 years had elapsed, prosecution failed to
produce on record the evidence of Medical Officer and Investigating
Officer and due to this reason, the learned Magistrate has been
pleased to acquit the private respondents herein - accused in absence
of reasonable explanation on the part of learned APP appearing for
the State in its ability to adduce or produce any evidence to prove the
case before the learned Magistrate. It is needless to say that it is the
duty of prosecution to prove the case and to secure and procure the
witnesses to prove the case and considering the inherent defect in the
procedure to procure the evidence of witnesses before the learned
Magistrate, acquittal came to be recorded. Hence, the learned
appellate Court confirmed the said judgment of the learned
Magistrate on 15.09.2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/932/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
[4.0] In view of above, it is crystal clear that there are concurrent
findings of fact and right from registration of FIR on 02.04.1990, today
more than 36 years have passed and even otherwise, as per section
401(3) of the CrPC question does not arise to overturn the findings of
acquittal recorded by both the Courts below more particularly when
there is no perversity or infirmity is found in judgment and order
passed by both the Courts below.
[4.1] The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a
palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where
decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by
the learned Magistrate, it appears that learned Magistrate has already
appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is
found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted keeping in
mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor
vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no
perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate
Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court. Both the Courts
have properly assigned reasons and given the finding based on
evidence led and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
[4.2] It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/932/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded 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. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Courts below
have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of
evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally
perverse.
[5.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application
fails and stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
