The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, as well as the importance of applying the principles of justice to prevent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. With consent of the learned advocate of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. This revision application has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 on 08.07.2014, whereby, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and the said judgment and order was confirmed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 on 17.12.2016.

3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

3.1. That an FIR being I - C.R. No. 125 of 2004 was registered at Danta Police Station on 18.05.2004 by the original complainant Jethiben wife of Navalbhai Prajapti against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and after recording the statement of the necessary witnesses and drawing panchnama of the place of offence as also recovering a cricket bat, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta against the applicant, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004.

3.2 That after the applicant was arrested, he was released on bail and after the summons of Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 was duly served, the applicant-original accused appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta and a charge at Exh.3 was framed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. That the complainant was examined at Exh.26, witnesses Sureshdan Ambadan Gadhvi and Chetana Navabhai Prajapati were examined at Exh.34 and Exh.35 respectively, panch witness Narandan Kakaldan Gadhavi was examined at Exh.7, panch witness Sitarambhai Valjibhai was examined at Exh.36, panch witness Ravaji Jivaji was examined at Exh.38, Medical Officer Ujjavalkumar Mangilal Gupta was examined at Exh.47 and the investigating officer Gashesharam Kesharam was examined at Exh.39. The learned Magistrate, after considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, was pleased to acquit the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC but convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta on 08.07.2014, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Court at Palanpur. The learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur passed a judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014 on 17.12.2016 and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 843 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the applicant has preferred the present revision application mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is illegal and erroneous and contrary to the provisions of settled principles of law. That the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record and the learned Courts have not considered the fact that the complainant has stated that she had received blows with a cricket bat on her back and the cricket bat broke but no injuries are shown on her back. That the alleged incident has occurred while the complainant and others were playing cricket but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, it has come on record that there was an enmity between the present applicant and