CR.RA/347/1997 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.347 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA ========================================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================================= = BHASKARBHAI BALWANTBHAI DABOLKAR - Petitioner Versus NANDABEN RAGHUNATH MAHADEV & ORS. - Respondents ========================================================= = Appearance : MS JAYSHREE C BHATT for Petitioner. MS FD PATEL, APP for Respondent No.5. None for Respondent Nos.1-4. ========================================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA Date : 18/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner-original complainant has CR.RA/347/1997 2/9 JUDGMENT preferred this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Code” for short] and has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.04.1997 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.245 of 1993 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, 452 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short]. 2. Head Constable Dhanjibhai Pitamberbhai of Madhavpura Police Station went to Civil Hospital on 05.04.1993 on receiving a vardhi from the hospital and found that one Jyotikaben had sustained burns and, therefore, he made inquiry and wrote a yadi to Executive Magistrate for recording her dying declaration. The dying declaration was recorded and the Head Constable went to draw panchnama of scene of offence and on the basis of the complaint filed by him with report submitted to the Police Station, an offence was registered as I-C.R.No.115 of 1993 at Madhavpura Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC against Jyotikaben. The statement of Jyotikaben was also recorded on 05.04.1993. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint filed by Jyotikaben, offence as I-C.R.No.125 of 1993 CR.RA/347/1997 3/9 JUDGMENT under Sections 307, 114 and 452 of the IPC was registered against the respondents-accused by Madhavpura Police Station. Jyotikaben died during the treatment and, therefore, postmortem on her dead body was performed. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 114 of the IPC. As the offences were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The learned trial Judge framed the charge for the aforesaid offences against the respondents-accused and it was read over and explained to them. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the respondents-accused were explained to them. The respondents-accused in their further statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code denied having committed the offence and stated that they are innocent. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the respondents- accused, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge CR.RA/347/1997 4/9 JUDGMENT levelled against the respondents-accused and, therefore, acquitted them. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Application. 4. Ms.J.C.Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, was absent in all the calls. I have heard Ms.F.D.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the Record & Proceedings of the trial Court. 5. It may be recorded that State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. 6. It appears from the evidence of P.W.-7 Bharatbhai Sidibhai recorded at Exhibit 27 that he took over the investigation of I-C.R.No.115 of 1993 from P.W.- 6 Dhanjibhai (Exhibit-19) on 09.04.1993 and recorded the complaint of Jyotikaben and it was forwarded with report Exhibit 28 to register an offence against the respondents-accused. The prosecution has produced the report at Exhibit 28. It appears from the report that the offence was disclosed by Jyotikaben at 16-15 hours on 09.04.1993 for the incident that occurred on 05.04.1993 CR.RA/347/1997 5/9 JUDGMENT at 14-30 hours. The prosecution has not produced the complaint allegedly recorded by P.W.-7 Bharat on 09.04.1993. Therefore, the prosecution case with regard to lodging of the complaint by Jyotikaben and involvement of the respondents-accused could not be believed. 7. The prosecution produced dying declaration of Jyotikaben at Exhibit 24. It appears that it was recorded on 05.04.1993 between 9.15 P.M. And 9.40 P.M. It indicates that the deceased herself poured kerosene from the container and set her on fire. It does not indicate that the respondents-accused played any role in setting her on fire. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence to connect the respondents- accused. 8. It appears from the evidence of P.W.-6 Dhanjibhai that he recorded statement of Jyotikaben during the investigation. The trial Court has admitted the statement of Jyotikaben in evidence by giving Exhibit 21. As the statement was recorded during the course of investigation in the offence registered as I-C.R.No.115 of 1993, it could not have been admitted in evidence. Therefore, the statement could not be relied upon to CR.RA/347/1997 6/9 JUDGMENT connect the respondents-accused in the offence registered as I-C.R.No.125 of 1993. 9. The prosecution has examined P.W.-1, Nandaben Bhagvandas, at Exhibit 12 and P.W.-3 Shantaram Balvantray at Exhibit-14. The evidence of P.W.-1, Nandaben, indicates that the respondents-accused were beating the deceased. However, this evidence is contrary to dying declaration Exhibit 24. The evidence of P.W.-3 Shantaram indicates that he was not present at the time of the incident, but came to know about the incident through his elder brother Kantinath. According to him, when he went to see Jyotikaben in hospital, she told him that the respondents-accused had picked up quarrel, attacked her and set her on fire. This evidence is also contrary to the dying declaration – Exhibit 24. Therefore, the prosecution case does not inspire confidence and the respondents-accused could not be implicated on the basis of such a weak piece of evidence. 10. The prosecution also examined P.W.-5 Dr. Vijaybhai Rajnikant Shah at Exhibit 17. The witness has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The prosecution also produced P.M. Note at Exhibit 18. Both these evidence do not implicate the respondents- CR.RA/347/1997 7/9 JUDGMENT accused. 11. In view of the above, there is not a single evidence to indicate that the respondents-accused were involved in the offence and were responsible for death of Jyotikaben. It also appears that according to the prosecution case, the respondents-accused had committed trespass, caught hold of Jyotikaben, dragged her to kitchen, poured kerosene and set her on fire. The evidence of P.W.-1 does not indicate that she witnessed the incident of setting the deceased on fire by the respondents-accused. There is no evidence to indicate that the respondents-accused committed trespass, dragged her to kitchen, caught hold of her and set her on fire. The evidence of dying declaration of Jyotikaben is contrary to the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no independent, direct, reliable and convincing evidence indicating involvement of the respondents-accused. 12. It is settled proposition that an order of acquittal passed by a trial Court should be sparingly interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The interference with the order passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from CR.RA/347/1997 8/9 JUDGMENT glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has overlooked material evidence. Therefore, ordinarily, 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 trial Court unless glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. 13. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point out that there is glaring illegality or that the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence. It is also not indicated that there is manifest error of law or procedure. 14. In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Revision Application fails and stands dismissed. R & P be sent back to the trial Court. [Bankim N. Mehta, J.] CR.RA/347/1997 9/9 JUDGMENT Rajendra