Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, which had partly allowed the appeal of the accused, Rajendrakumar Haribhai Solanki, and set aside his conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) passed by the trial court. The case arose from an incident on 15 May 2007 at midnight, where the complainant, Nirmalaben, wife of the accused, alleged that the accused assaulted her for not bringing money from her parental home. She was treated at a dispensary, and a complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of an offence. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was tried as Criminal Case No. 6076 of 2007 before the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, who convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment with fine. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2012 before the Sessions Court, which partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The State then filed the present revision. The High Court heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the State and learned advocate Mr. C.R. Mishra for the respondent-accused. The State argued that the Sessions Court's order was illegal and contrary to evidence, and that both lower courts failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly. The High Court, however, found that the Sessions Court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and noted that the complainant's testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence or independent witnesses, and that the complainant was an interested witness. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the Sessions Court's view was plausible, the revision was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397, 401 CrPC - The High Court in revision against acquittal cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the Sessions Court's acquittal was based on plausible appreciation and not perverse, hence no interference warranted (Paras 4-6). B) Indian Penal Code - Hurt - Section 324 IPC - Conviction for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon - Testimony of injured witness must be corroborated by medical evidence or other independent witnesses - Held that the sole testimony of the complainant, being an interested witness, was unreliable and not corroborated by medical evidence or independent witnesses, hence acquittal justified (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 324 IPC by reappreciating evidence, and whether the High Court should interfere in revision against such acquittal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Sessions Court's order of acquittal.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal revision
- standard of proof for conviction under Section 324 IPC
- reliability of interested witness testimony
- scope of revisional jurisdiction against acquittal
