[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hussain Oshman Luchani vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/96/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 96
of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 3 of 2026
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 96 of 2021
==========================================================
HUSSAIN OSHMAN LUCHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Application is filed by the applicant
seeking the following reliefs:
"Your Lordship may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the conviction
order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar below Exh.55 in Criminal
Case no. 2230 of 2003; and Your Lordships may be pleased to
quash and set aside the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by
the learned Sessions Court, Porbandar in Criminal Appeal no.
06 of 2013 below Exh.47 qua the petitioner - original accused
no.1;"
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was
married to Sugaraben Hussainbhai about 12 years prior in
accordance with Muslim rites and rituals, and she resided with
her in-laws for the last three years without any prior dispute. On
02.02.2003, following a quarrel, she left the matrimonial home
and lodged a complaint at Dwarka Police Station, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/96/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
later transferred to Madhavpur Police Station and registered as
C.R. No. I-8/2003 for offences under Sections 498A, 324, 323,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135
of the Gujarat Police Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed and Criminal Case No. 2230 of 2003 was instituted before
the learned JMFC, Porbandar. By judgment dated 28.02.2013,
the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar
convicted the petitioner and other accused under Sections 498A,
323, 324 and 114 of the IPC, while acquitting them of the offence
under Section 506(2) IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police
Act. The petitioner and other accused preferred Criminal Appeal
No. 06 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Porbandar, during
which original accused No.2 (father of the petitioner) expired. By
order dated 28.01.2021, the learned Sessions Judge partly
allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction and sentence, and
ultimately convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC,
sentencing him to 6 months' simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default one month's simple imprisonment, along
with compensation of Rs.10,000/- under Section 357(B) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
dispute arises out of a matrimonial issue. It is further submitted
that the applicant was initially enlarged on bail and had
remained on bail; however, subsequently, due to non-
prosecution, the matter came to be dismissed for default on
account of non-removal of office objections, and presently, the
applicant is in jail. Therefore, the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/96/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
applicant has requested to allow the present application and has
prayed that the Court may take a lenient view, considering that
the applicant has already undergone a sentence of more than
three months.
5. Learned APP has opposed the present application,
submitting that concurrent findings have been recorded by the
courts below after considering the documents on record, and
that no case is made out to overturn such findings.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the material on record. It appears that the applicant has
been convicted under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and
sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment, along with a fine
of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the
complainant under Section 357(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7. It is a settled position of law that in a revision application,
the jurisdiction of this Court is limited. Unless there is any
glaring error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, or the
finding is perverse or arbitrary, interference is not warranted.
Re-appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in revisional
jurisdiction. Upon perusal of the evidence on record, it appears
that the findings and reasons assigned by the learned trial Court
as well as the learned Appellate Court are just and proper and
do not call for interference, particularly in light of the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/96/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
8. However, considering that the applicant has no past
antecedents, that the incident pertains to the year 2003, and
that the applicant has already undergone a sentence of about
three months, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence.
9. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence
imposed by the learned Sessions Court is reduced to the period
already undergone, i.e., three months, subject to payment of fine
of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the
complainant.
10. In view of the above, the Revision Application is partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent. If the presence of the applicant is
not required in connection with any other offence, the concerned
authority is directed to release the applicant forthwith, subject to
payment of the aforesaid fine and compensation.
11. Since the main matter is disposed of. The present
application does not survive. Hence, the same is disposed of as
not survivied.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
