Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by Iliyash Ishakji Khatri, an eyewitness and victim of an incident dated 03.03.2002, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Camp Ankleshwar, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.63 of 2003. By the impugned order, the trial court acquitted respondent nos.2 to 14 (accused) of all charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 295, 436, 153A, 307, 325, 427, 186, 187 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The FIR was registered as C.R. No.I-31 of 2002 with Zaghadiya Police Station. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Zaghadia, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial court, after trial, acquitted all accused. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present revision. The applicant contended that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence. The respondents argued that the revision against acquittal has limited scope and the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The High Court examined the scope of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court had considered the evidence, including contradictions in eyewitness testimony, and its conclusions were plausible. The applicant failed to demonstrate any perversity. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC - The High Court in revision against acquittal cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse, hence no interference warranted (Paras 5-7).
B) Indian Penal Code - Offences of Rioting, Unlawful Assembly, Attempt to Murder - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 436, 325, 427, 295, 153A, 186, 187 IPC - Acquittal by trial court based on contradictions in eyewitness testimony and lack of credible evidence - Held that the revision applicant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere in revision against an order of acquittal when the trial court's findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of respondent nos.2 to 14.
Law Points
- Scope of revision against acquittal
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 282
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 576 of 2006
Mr. M. M. Tirmizi for applicant, Mr. B. H. Sethna for respondent nos. 2 to 7, 9 to 14, Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for respondent State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the acquittal of respondent nos.2 to 14 and to convict them for the alleged offences.
Filing Reason
The applicant, an eyewitness and victim, was aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Camp Ankleshwar, Bharuch) acquitted all accused vide judgment dated 23.06.2006 in Sessions Case No.63 of 2003.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere in revision against an order of acquittal when the trial court's findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Tirmizi for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence.
Learned Advocate Mr. B. H. Sethna for the respondents and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the State supported the acquittal, arguing that the revision has limited scope and the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC cannot interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse, hence no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of present criminal revision application the applicant has assailed the order dated 23.06.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.63 of 2003, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Camp Ankleshwar, Bharuch, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to acquit the respondents – accused nos.2 to 14, from the charges levelled against them.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an eyewitness and one of the victim of the offence dated 03.03.2002 registered as C. R. No.I-31 of 2002 with Zaghadiya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 295, 436 153(A), 307, 325, 427, 186 and 187 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the BP Act inter alia alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR had committed the alleged offences.
Procedural History
An FIR was registered on 03.03.2002 as C.R. No.I-31 of 2002 at Zaghadiya Police Station. Charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Zaghadia, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial proceeded as Sessions Case No.63 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Camp Ankleshwar, Bharuch, who acquitted all accused on 23.06.2006. The applicant filed the present revision application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 149, 295, 436, 153A, 307, 325, 427, 186, 187
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
