AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bankim N. Mehta, J.—The petitioners have preferred this revision application u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has prayed to set aside acquittal of the respondent No. 1 - accused for the offence u/s 307 and 453 of the IPC and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioners also prayed for enhancement of his sentence u/s 326 of the IPC to imprisonment of life.
According to the prosecution case, complainant ASI Rameshbhai Vajubhai of Raopura Police Station received a wardhi from Dr. Uday Prakash, CMO that Gitaben, daughter of Jaswantsinh Udesinh, and Anandben, daughter of Jaswantsinh Mohansinh received injuries on account of acid while both of them were sleeping at the house of Gitaben Jaswantsinh, and were admitted in the SSG Hospital for treatment. Relevant entry with regard to wardhi was made at Raopura Police Station, but as the alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Amod Police Station, the PSO of Amod Police Station was informed about the said offence and on that basis, Amod Police Station registered an offence as I - C.R. No. 95 of 2000 and investigation was started. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Amod. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 15 of 2001. Charge Exh-5 for the aforesaid offences was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Judge explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence. The accused in his further statement recorded u/s 313 of the CrPC stated that he has been falsely implicated. After hearing learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 453 and 307 of the IPC and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act, but convicted him for the offence u/s 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to undergo SI for four months. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing this revision application.
I have heard learned advocate Mr. Vin for the petitioners and learned APP Mr. Parikh for respondent State. Respondent No. 1 is represented by M/s Nanavaty Associates, but none has appeared.
It may be recorded that the State has not preferred any acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment.
It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Judge has on appreciation of evidence adduced before it recorded a finding that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the offence punishable u/s 453 and 307 of the IPC and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Even, the learned advocate for the petitioners has not been able to indicate as to how this finding is erroneous or that the learned trial Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. It is settled proposition of law that when there is no glaring defect in the procedure nor manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice and only in exceptional cases, revisional power should be exercised. It is also settled proposition that High Court does not ordinary interfere with acquittal unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. In the instant case, learned advocate for the petitioners has not been able to indicate that the learned trial Judge has committed error of law or procedure in acquitting the accused. It is also a fact that appeal is provided under the provisions of law against the order of acquittal, but State has not preferred any acquittal appeal and therefore, this Court is of the view that the revision application against the order of acquittal has no merit and therefore, it is required to be dismissed.
As regards quantum of punishment for the offence u/s 326 of the IPC, the maximum sentence prescribed under the law is life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine. The learned trial Judge has on appreciation of evidence imposed the punishment. It is discretionary power of the Court to impose punishment. The High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction has limited power to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court. In the facts of this case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court and to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
In view of above, the revision application fails and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.