AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Ms. Justice S.G. Gokani
The revisionist is the original complainant who preferred this revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhangadhra in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2001 dated 16th October, 2006 for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. To briefly state the facts of the prosecution. On 14th March, 2000 at about 10.15 to 10.30 in the morning, the complainant was on his way to the office of Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra as he had to attend one case. The accused, on forming unlawful assembly, threatened the complainant as to why he was not making any compromise Jin earlier cases, he was abused and one Narsinh Talu inflicted knife blow in the abdomen of the complainant and Girish Karshan inflicted knife blow on the right shoulder and on the back portion of the head of complainant. Magan Dudha also had given blows with knife. Other accused too inflicted knife blows, it is also the case of prosecution that Karshan Dahya gave threat and kick blows. In all total 14 blows were inflicted by the accused upon the complainant. He was shifted to Dhrangadhra Government Hospital and thereafter, to Surendranagar Gandhi Hospital and to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital.
A complaint was registered, which culminated into Criminal Case No. 398 of 2000. After committal, it was tried as Sessions Case No. 5 of 2001. The charges were framed and 26 witnesses were examined before the trial Court. On completion of the evidence, the further statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of Cr. P.C. And the Court, after hearing both the sides, acquitted the accused. Therefore, the present revision.
It is fervently argued by learned Advocate Ms. Meghna Patel appearing with Mr. Ashish Dagli, Advocate that injuries inflicted on the petitioner was corroborated by medical evidences and the Court ought not to have disregarded the same. She further argued that minor contradictions have been highlighted when the involvement of accused writs large on the record that the Court must have appreciated keeping in mind the basic principles of law and convicted the accused. She also further contended that there was no reason for disbelieving the injured witness who had named all the accused. There was sufficient evidence on record that there were past grievances between the parties and hence, when the oral version was substantiated by the medical evidence and the panchnama and when the motive was also established, the Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. She further argued that in a criminal case against Kala Deva, present complainant is the witness and Dudha Dahya and Karshan Dahya were the accused in Kala Deva''s matter.
Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah has supported the case of the revisionist, by stating that there is no delay in filing the complaint as there is sufficient explanation already given for such delay. She also further stated that though the State has not preferred any revision, the version of the revisionist is endorsed by the State.
Learned Advocate Mr. Dastoor appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5-accused, urged that there are no other independent persons, who gave their depositions nor any independent panchas have spoken. It is further argued that there has been a long delay in filing the complaint, the Court below has rightly not believed the injured witness. There is no medical history given and the Court has noted that Karshan Dahya has given an evidence of alibi and there is a false implication of Karshan Dahya. It appears that the Court did not believe the credential of injured witness whose evidence did not inspire confidence and therefore also in the revision which has a limited scope, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal.
On, thus, having considered the submissions of both the sides and on close examination of the judgment in question, it can be noted that complainant Jagabhai Nathabhai Chamar on a fateful day was going to the office of Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra for attending a case on 14th March, 2000 with one Bhikhabhai Jethabhai. It was around 10.00 in the morning near Dhragadhra People''s Cooperative Bank that Girish Karshan, Karshan Dahya, Magan Dudha, Narsinh Talu and Dudha Dahya (respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) approached him and asked him as to whether he is willing to compromise or not. When the complainant said that he would talk to them on the date of adjournment, they all got excited and took out the knives and started giving blows to the complainant. The complaint reveals that first blow was inflicted by respondent No. 1 Girish Karshan, second blow was given by Narsinh Talu on the complainant and third blow was given by respondent No. 3 on the right buttock of the complainant as well as on the right shoulder. Bhikha Jetha attempted to intervene and saved the complainant who was later removed Dhrangadhra Government Hospital. A complaint in this regard was registered at Dhrangadhra City Police Station, which was registered as ICR No. 20/2000 which an investigation concluded into Sessions Case No. 398 of 2000.
When one looks at the complaint given soon after happening of the incident, the complainant-revisionist has specifically named all the respondents in the complaint itself. He has also attributed individual role exercised by each of these respondents. It is apparent from the complaint itself that knife blows were given by these respondents to the complainant and he was removed to Dhrangadhra Government Hospital. Thereafter, when needed, he was removed to Surendranagar Gandhi Hospital where the complaint was given. The complaint also reveals the motive. The complainant was being forced for entering into the compromise in a matter when he was an eyewitness and one of the respondents was an accused making this motive very obvious.
As can be noted from the record and proceedings, the complainant was examined as prosecution witness No. 6 before the trial Court. He has given the deposition on the line of his complaint, supporting in toto the version narrated in the written complaint. He has also specified that he received 14 blows of knife. The motive was also further specified. There was a dispute between Dudha Dahya and Kala Deva. As he was a witness in that case, there was stone pelting on his house on 28th June, 1998. The police had taken him to the police station for lodging a complaint in that respect and he was made to sit till 2.00 in the night and thereafter he was driven away.
In the cross-examination, there is a reference of some of the cases lodged against this person. He agreed that he faced a case u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He also agreed that Dudha Dahya, respondent No. 5 herein, filed a complaint against him and others before Jinjuwada Police Station. A complaint was also filed against him and his wife in Jinjuwada Police Station by one Harijan Naagar Punja. Yet, another complaint was filed against this person and against Bhikha Jetha being ICR No. 18/1999 and he has said that he was acquitted in that matter. One Harijan Chamar filed a complaint against this revisionist being ICR No. 17/1999 and Harijan Laxmiben also filed a complaint against this person on 21st October, 1998. He also agreed in the cross-examination that in 1993, the District Police Head and District Collector had sent him to the jail and as he had serious fight with Rajput community and he had to leave Surendranagar. He denied that he has old animosity with various persons and some other persons had inflicted blows and not the accused. It is the case of the defence that this person has many enemies and he is a habitual drunkard and therefore, the possibility could not be ruled out that he was injured by some of his enemies. Other than the injured, the only eyewitness of this incident, Bhikha Jhetha chose not to support the case of the prosecution.
As can be noted from the judgment, some of the discrepancies in names given to the medical officer and number of injuries inflicted on the complaint weighed with the Court in not believing the version of the revisionist. The Court was also opinion that in the broad day light, such crime has been committed and therefore, it is very unlikely that there would be no support to the case of prosecution and particularly to the version of the complainant by any witness. Neither panch-witness nor any other eyewitness supported the case and this essentially led the court to acquit the respondents.
As noted hereinabove, in the complaint itself, the complainant has made a mention of the blows inflicted on the person of the complainant and the medical officer from whom he received the treatment soon after the injuries also supported the case, however, the names of all the respondents are found absent before the medical papers which is not the requirement under the law.
The Court below from the cross-examination of the complainant, chose to disbelieve the complainant and credential of this witness was questioned and in absence of any substantiating deposition by any other witnesses in the case, it disbelieved the version of the complainant.
In such circumstances, the question that arises in this revision is as to whether the Court requires to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order.
This Court of course while dealing with revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, does not require to sit in an appeal over the order of Sessions Court.
Decision of the Apex Court on the subject as reported in Johar and Others Vs. Mangal Prasad and Another, , requires reproduction here:
The approach of the High Court to the entire case cannot be appreciated. The High Court should have kept in mind that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it exercises a limited power. Its jurisdiction to entertain a revision application, although is not barred, but severally restricted, particularly when it arises from a judgment of acquittal.
We may notice a few of the decisions of this Court which are binding on us.
In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , this Court observed:-
It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial, when it cannot itself directly covert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised.
.........
Considering the past criminal antecedents of the complainant, non-support of any of the prosecution witnesses, surrounding circumstances cumulatively when examined by the Sessions Court, version set forth by the complainant did not inspire confidence in the Court. Even if with the identical evidence, this Court can reach to different conclusion, it is not for it to so conclude in revisional jurisdiction. It is neither improbable nor perverse to arrive at the findings, the trial Court has reached to and therefore, no interference is warranted in this petition. This revision fails and stands dismissed therefor. Resultantly, Rule is discharged in the above terms.