( 1 ) THE present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Crpc, is moved by the petitioners- original accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30. 03. 1991 passed by ld. JMFC, Patan in Criminal Case No. 229/1985 as well as the judgment and order dated 30. 01. 1993 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 14/1991. The petitioners when present Cri. Rev. Application was moved, were 8, but now pending the Cri. Rev. Application, two of them have expired. Ld. APP Mr. NC Sood has confirmed that petitioner No. 1 Chaudhari Shankarbhai Kuberbhai and petitioner No. 6 Chaudhari Virambhai Ratnabhai have expired. Thus, the cause survived for petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 8 i. e. original accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 9 and 10 and it stands abated so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 6 i. e. original accused Nos. 1 and 7 are concerned. It stands disposed of qua them accordingly.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are also shown as witnesses in a cross-case i. e. Criminal case No. 122/1985 tried and decided by the same ld. JMFC, Patan. Total four accused persons of cross-case have been held guilty for their involvement in different criminal offences and they are the petitioners before this Court of Cri. Rev. Application No. 36/1993. Both the Cri. Rev. Applications have been heard together in the interest of justice. In Criminal Case No. 229/1985, along with the present petitioners, the police initially prosecuted 13 accused persons. However, pending Criminal Case, Criminal Appeal No. 14/1991 and present Cri. Rev. Application, total 7 accused persons out of 13 have expired. 3 (i) Vide judgment and order dated 30. 03. 1991 in Criminal Case No. 229/1985, original accused Nos. 1 to 4,6, 8 to 12 have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324, 326 read with section 149, as also under sections 147, 148, 447 of Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence as under:-

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the appeal preferred by the convict accused, ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide judgment dated 30. 01. 1993 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by ld. JMFC, Patan.

( 4 ) THE ld. Counsel Mr. MC Barot appearing for the petitioners accused has addressed the Court at length. He has taken this Court through the decisions ld. JMFC as well as of appellate Court and submitted that both the Courts below have committed gross error in evaluating the evidence and holding that the petitioners accused were the members of unlawful assembly and have committed criminal trespass in the agricultural field where the incident has happened and different offences have been committed. On the contrary, the evidence goes to suggest that the petitioners are the victim of the offences committed by other group of persons and when the Court has held them also guilty while deciding the cross-case, none of the accused persons could have been held responsible for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and/or 149 of IPC R/w either section 324 or 326 of IPC. The theory of elimination has not been applied by any of the Courts which is required as per the settled legal principles of criminal jurisprudence and there was ample scope for both the Courts below to apply the principle of minimum liability when the accused of cross-case are found guilty of serious offence punishable under section 325 etc. of IPC. (i) Having considered the panchanama and other aspects including the nature of injuries found on the body of the prosecution witnesses and the place of incident, ld. Counsel Mr. Barot for the petitioners accused, after some deliberations and going through oral as well as medical evidence, has fairly accepted that the order of conviction is not bad that can be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction being tow concurrent findings, but this Court at least should hold that the sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document