CR.RA/275/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 275 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= RAMANBHAI RAVJIBHAI SOLANKI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MTM HAKIM for Applicant. Mr. I.M.Pandya for Respondent no. 1, None for Respondent no. 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 11/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. I.M.Pandya waives service on behalf of the respondent no.1. This Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal CR.RA/275/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT Procedure Code is arises out of the judgment and order dated 5-4-2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Padra District: Vadodara, in Criminal Case no.271 of 1998 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the opponent no.2-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The facts leading to the institution of the present Revision are that on 18-1-1998, the present opponent no.2- Deputy Sarpanch of village visited the Tea Stall belonging to the present applicant situated near the S.T.Stop at Dhabasa Village, Taluka Padra and by using force and abusive language asked the applicant(complainant) and other persons to remove their cabins, as a result of which, a complaint came to be lodged against the opponent no.2-original accused with Padra Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2), IPC which was registered as CR no.I-38/1998 It is further alleged that the opponent no.2-original accused in the process threw the stove with the hot burning tea over the present applicant causing burn injuries to him. It is also alleged that the preset opponent no.2-original accused threatened to kill them. Against the said complaint, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and at the end of the investigation charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the present opponent no.2-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2), IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra, CR.RA/275/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT who framed charge Exh.3 on 22-5-1998 against the present opponent no.2-original accused. Before the learned Magistrate, the present opponent no.2- original accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case was tried and evidence of prosecution was recorded by examining Ramanbhai Ravji Solanki(complainant) at Exh.10, Yunusbhai Sulemanbhai Dhanchani at Exh.15, Gordhanbhai Chaturbhai at Exh.20, Mustak Gulam at Exh.22, Manjulaben Ramanbhai at Exh.32 and Ravjibhai Parshottambhai at Exh.39. The prosecution has also examined Panchwitnesses and also produced documentary evidence such a, Complaint at Exh.11, Panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.58, medical certificate at Exh.65 etc. The further statement of the opponent no.2-original accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing the learned Counsel of the parties the learned Magistrate held that the case against the opponent no.2-original accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and passed the judgment and order of acquittal which is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Application. No appeal has been preferred by the State of Gujarat against the said judgment and order of acquittal. Heard Mr.MTM Hakim, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr. I.M.Pandya for the respondent no.1-State. The learned Counsel Mr. Hakim for the applicant CR.RA/275/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT argued that the applicant being a poor person had not lodged the complaint immediately as he had remained under fear of the Sarpanch who is an influential person, however, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground of delay treating the same as fatal to the prosecution case, and thereby, committed error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Counsel next argued that there are no major contradiction in the evidence of complainant as well as witnesses, however, the learned Magistrate by giving much weight and consideration to the minor contradictions discarded the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses and thereby committed grave error in acquitting the accused. As against that, the learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. According to him, the learned Magistrate has correctly appreciated the evidence and passed the judgment and order of acquittal which is quite legal and proper calling for no interference. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record as also the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. In cross- examination the complainant has specifically stated on oath before the Court that along with other persons, he went to the DSP only for the purpose of giving complaint. He also stated on oath that the present opponent no.2-original accused who was Deputy Sarpanch at the relevant time did not allow him to take away the cabin and so he went to lodge the CR.RA/275/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT complaint against the present opponent no.2-original accused. He has in clear terms stated that had he been permitted to take away the cabin, he would have certainly not lodged the complaint against the present opponent no.2-original accused. It is therefore evident that only for the purpose of obtaining the cabin, the applicant(complainant) had lodged the complaint against the opponent no.2- original accused. The trial Court has rightly held that though complainant took medical treatment from Dr. Shankerbhai, he was not examined. No doubt, the complainant in his deposition has stated that Dr. Shankerbhai had passed away and so he was not examined. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, he did not record the statement of Dr. Shankerbhai and he also admitted that during investigation it was not found as to how the complaint received injuries. No satisfactory explanation has been tendered for filing the complaint after 21 days of the incident. It is a settled proposition of law that it is only when miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law is apparent on the face of the record that the Court can interfere in Revision. The Revisional Court has very limited power and re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted. In light of the aforesaid evidence on record, I find that the trial Court has dealt with the evidence in its true perspective and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. Suffice it to say that the learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out as to how the findings CR.RA/275/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT recorded by the learned Magistrate are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or unsustainable in law. I therefore, do not find any valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 5-4-2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,Padra, District Vadodara in Criminal Case no.271 of 1998 is hereby upheld. Rule is discharged. (M.D.Shah,J.) lee.