Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant, Dodiya Ushaben Ghanshyamsinh, challenging the acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 4 (original accused) by the trial court and the dismissal of her appeal by the appellate court. The complainant had lodged a complaint being II-C.R.No.1 of 2018 with Laghnaj Police Station alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 427, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the trial commenced. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana, by judgment dated 12.04.2022 in Criminal Case No.4802 of 2018, acquitted all accused. The complainant appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal on 23.02.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2022, confirming the acquittal. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. The court noted that the revision against acquittal has a very narrow scope; it can only be entertained if the findings of the lower courts are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. After examining the record, the court found that the trial court and appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence, and the complainant had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Sections 397, 401 CrPC - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction against acquittal will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The court held that the trial court and appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence and the complainant failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4-5) B) Indian Penal Code - Assault and Criminal Intimidation - Burden of Proof - Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 427, 114 IPC - The prosecution must prove each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, leading to acquittal. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence. (Paras 3-5) C) Gujarat Police Act - Offence Under Section 135 - Requirement of Proof - Section 135 GP Act - The charge under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act requires specific evidence of conduct causing annoyance or obstruction. The trial court found no such evidence, and the appellate court confirmed. The High Court found no reason to interfere. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of acquittal by the trial court and appellate court warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Law Points
- Scope of revision against acquittal is narrow
- concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered unless perverse or illegal
- burden of proof on prosecution
- acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence
