CR.RA/62/1998 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 62 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= KIRANBHAI LALABHAI HARIJAN & 5 - Applicants Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR CL SONI for Applicants MR KC SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent-1- State. MR MC BAROT for Respondents : 2 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 08/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT This revision application is preferred to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special CR.RA/62/1998 2/4 JUDGMENT Case No.181/1993, on 31st December, 1997. 2. The said judgment was rendered recording acquittal of the accused persons before the trial Court. They were accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 r.w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court found that the complaint as well as the evidence were false and concocted and, therefore, recorded acquittal. The learned Special Judge also issued notice to the first informant and the witnesses calling upon them to show cause why the proceedings under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be initiated against them. 3. The first informant and the witnesses have preferred this revision application praying for setting aside the acquittal and stay of the notice issued by the Special Court calling upon the revisionists to show cause why the proceedings under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code may not be initiated. 4. It appears that the State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal and the Office has, therefore, placed this matter before a Single Judge Bench being a criminal revision application. CR.RA/62/1998 3/4 JUDGMENT 5. This Court has heard the learned advocates for the parties. 6. Learned advocate Mr.C.L.Soni for the revisionists submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in recording acquittal, and has become too harsh upon the first informant and the witnesses by issuing show-cause notice under challenge. 7. Having gone through the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the evidence is not indicative of constitution of offence of either culpable homicide not amounting to murder or even murder. The allegation is that a fist blow was given on the chest of the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and ultimately died. The deceased was aged 90 years and the medical evidence also indicates that the death was possible due to heart- attack. The medical evidence also indicates that there was a discrepancy in the time of death and according to the trial Court, there is possibility of converting a natural death into an offence of murder. The trial Court did not accept the evidence of prosecution in respect of hurts to the witnesses, on the basis of the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution for drawing support. The trial Court found that there are discrepancies about site of injury and other aspects. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is CR.RA/62/1998 4/4 JUDGMENT called for, so far as order of acquittal is concerned. 8. It may be noted that the revision is preferred only praying for stay of the execution, operation and implementation of the order issuing show-cause notice, till final disposal of the revision, which has not been granted earlier. 9. In view of the above facts, the revision application is found to be devoid of merits, the same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. [A.L.Dave,J.] (patel)