Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kumbhar Harjibhai Thakarsibhai on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 176 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KUMBHAR HARJIBHAI THAKARSIBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Revision Application No. 176
of 2013 is preferred by the State being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the order dated 31.8.2012 passed below
Exh-8 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2009 passed by the 7th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad,
wherein the appeal preferred by the original accused
No.1- respondent was allowed and the judgment rendered
in Criminal Case No. 394 of 1995 on 18.12.2008 by the
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Botad convicting
respondent-original accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Sections 326 of the Indian Penal Code
was reversed.
2. Revision application being Criminal Revision
Application No. 177 of 2013 is preferred by the State
being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed
below Exh-8 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2009 dated
31.08.2012 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhavnagar camp at Botad, wherein the appeal
preferred by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3- original
accused Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed and judgment
rendered in Criminal Case No. 394 of 1995 on 18.12.2008
by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Botad,
acquitting respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3- Original
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
Being aggrieved by the order passed dated 31.8.2012
passed below Exh-8 in in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2009
as well as Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012, the present
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
revision applications are preferred. As both the revision
applications emerge out of the same criminal case, the
same are heard together for the sake of brevity.
3. The fact in nutshell is that it is the case of the
prosecution that the respondents accused have
committed an offence by giving a blow of sickle on the
head of brother of the complainant as well as giving stick
blows. The incident led to filing of First Information
Report which subsequently culminated into filing of the
charge-sheet. Thereafter the case was being committed to
the Court of learned JMFC which came to be numbered
as Criminal Case No. 394 of 1995. On the conclusion of
the trial, the JMFC was pleased to convict respondent
No.1 i.e. original accused No.1 of the offence punishable
under Section 326 of the IPC and sentence to undergo
three years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to
undergo nine months SI. As far as respondent Nos. 1, 2
and 3 – original accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the
learned JMFC was pleased to acquit respondent Nos. 1, 2
and 3 from the charges leveled against them as far as
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Sections 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Y.J. Patel,
learned advocate for the respondent.
5. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has stated that the learned Appellate Court
ought to have considered the fact that the medical
evidence has corroborated with the evidence of the
complainant as well as injured witness. The injuries found
on the victim can be said to have been proved and same
can be said to have been caused by the respondent Nos.2
and 3 – original accused. Mr. Sharma has further
submitted that looking to the evidence of the injured
witness, the complainant has stated in her evidence that
accused Nos. 2 and 3 had caused stick blow to the victim.
Likewise, the injured witness has also stated in his
evidence at Exh-66 that four accused persons got excited
and one accused armed with Dhariya and rest of three
were armed with sticks and had beaten the victim with
stick on his back. On the basis of such cogent evidences,
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
the learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court
had erred in coming to the conclusion that the evidence
produced before the Court are not corroborative and is
without any basis and therefore it creates doubt as to the
case of prosecution. It is also case of the prosecution that
the prosecution case can be proved from the evidence of
the witnesses examined, which gets support from the
evidence of Police witness and when there is no lacuna on
the part of the prosecution to prove its case, both the
Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case. On the basis
of such submissions, Mr. Sharma has requested to quash
and set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate
Court as well as learned trial Court and remit the matter
back.
6. Per contra, Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the
respondent has stated that there is a concurrent findings
by both the Courts below as far as respondent Nos. 1 to3
of Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2013 is concerned. As far
as respondent of Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2013 is
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
concerned, the appellate has given finding re-
appreciating the evidence. This Court cannot go to the
extent of re-appreciating the evidence by the learned
Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. The
contention raised by the prosecution in the present
revision application is only qua re-appreciation of the
evidence. The learned Appellate Court as well as the trial
Court have given their judgment as per the provisions of
law and there is no error of law in the observation made
by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Patel
learned advocate has submitted to dismiss the present
revision application.
7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides
and having perusing the material on record, it can be
borne out that the only argument that is canvassed by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is with regard to re-
appreciating the evidence that is being discussed by the
learned Court of JMFC as well as learned Sessions Court.
There is nothing on record to show that the learned trial
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Court as well as learned Appellate Court has given any
finding which is contrary to the provisions of law or any
material evidence which is not recorded by the Courts
below. Therefore, it may be said that the scope of re-
appreciation of evidence in revision application is very
limited.
7. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the
Code 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 principles for
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397,
Cr.P.C. are enumerated in various judgments and
particularly in case of State of Maharashtra Vs Jag
Mohan Sing Kuldip Sing Anand and others, reported
in (2004) 7 SCC 659. The High Court under Sections
397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise powers as a second
Appellate Court and while exercising the revisonal power,
cannot undertake in-depth and minute re-examination of
entire evidence and upset findings of the Appellate court.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/176/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
There are concurrent findings of Trial Court and
Appellate Court. It would be impermissible to taken an in-
depth re-examination of the evidence recorded. The only
argument canvassed by Mr. Sharma, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor is with regard to
appreciation of the evidence by the learned Appellate
Court. There is no argument which canvasses if there was
any illegality or any error of law. Therefore, when the
revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure
cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner and
cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence, there is
nothing on record which substantiate any manifest
illegality in the order passed by the learned Appellate
Court. In view of the same, the present revision
application is without any merits and, therefore, liable to
be dismissed.
With the aforesaid observations, the present revision
application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as
to costs.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Mar 13 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:20:15 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link