[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrakumar Haribhai Solanki on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/509/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 509 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRAKUMAR HARIBHAI SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CR MISHRA(3474) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed by the
applicant-State seeking the following reliefs:
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside
the judgment and order rendered below Exh: 8 in Criminal
Appeal No.57 of 2012 on 26.03.2013 by the learned Sessions
Judge (Principal Court), Gandhinagar, and further be pleased
confirm judgment and order of concition and sentence passed
below Exh: 81 in Criminal Case No.6076 of 2007 on
30.11.2012 by the learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar;"
2. It is the case of the applicant that the complainant,
Nirmalaben, is the wife of accused No.1, Rajendrakumar Solanki,
and from their wedlock they have two daughters. It is alleged
that on 15.05.2007 at about 12:30 midnight, accused No.1
assaulted the complainant by questioning her for not bringing
money from her parental house. She was thereafter treated at a
dispensary, and a complaint was lodged, leading to registration
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/509/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
of the offence, investigation, and filing of charge-sheet. The case
was tried as Criminal Case No.6076 of 2007 before the learned
6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, who,
upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused under
Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to one year's simple
imprisonment along with a fine. Aggrieved thereby, the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2012 before the learned
Sessions Court (Principal Court), Gandhinagar, which was partly
allowed after hearing both sides. Therefore, the present
application.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the State of
Gujarat has submitted that the impugned order passed below
Exh.8 by the learned Sessions Judge is ex facie illegal, arbitrary,
and contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and therefore
deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted
that both the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the
material on record and have not evaluated the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in its true and proper perspective. The
learned APP has contended that the testimony of the
complainant clearly establishes the occurrence of the incident,
wherein she has categorically deposed about the manner in
which the accused assaulted her by dragging her, catching hold
of her hair, and banging her head against the wall, resulting in
injury and unconsciousness, and thereafter she was taken to the
hospital and the complaint came to be lodged. It is, therefore,
submitted that in light of the cogent and reliable evidence
available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/509/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
below are unjust and unsustainable in law, and the present
application deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has
supported the impugned order passed below Exh.8 by the
learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the same is just,
legal, and passed after proper appreciation of the evidence on
record. It is thus submitted that no illegality or perversity is
committed by the learned Sessions Judge, and hence, the
present application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and having perused the record, it appears that the accused came
to be convicted by the learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.6076 of 2007, by
judgment and order dated 30.11.2012, for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the said judgment and order, the accused preferred an appeal.
6. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar,
while deciding the appeal, has taken into consideration the fact
that the offence was registered in the year 2007 and that the
accused had no past criminal antecedents. Considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions
Judge, by judgment dated 26.03.2013, was pleased to modify the
sentence by substituting the sentence of imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.3,000/- (enhanced from Rs.1,000/-) and further
directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/509/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
complainant. It is also noted that the incident is of the year
2007, the conviction was recorded in the year 2012, and the
appellate order came to be passed in the year 2013, after
prolonged litigation. Therefore, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the reasons recorded by the learned
Sessions Court, more particularly in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides for
punishment with imprisonment, or with fine, or with both, and
thus the sentence of fine imposed by the appellate Court is
within the scope of the provision.
7. In view of the above, it clearly appears that the learned
Sessions Judge has not committed any error in awarding
compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, and the
sentence imposed reflects a just and equitable approach,
particularly considering the long pendency of the litigation.
8. In view of the settled position of law, including the decision
in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, no
error is committed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the
present revision application deserves to be dismissed.
9. The Revision Application is dismissed. Direct service is
permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
