IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and suspicion alone is not sufficient to establish guilt. The principles of benefit of doubt and the requirement for supporting evidence are crucial in determining guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Revision challenges judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2018, whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar has confirmed the judgment and order recorded by the learned JMFC, Valbhipur to acquit accused for the offences under sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 114 of IPC and section 135 of GP Act.

2. Fact of the case are as under :-

2.1. On 12.04.2013, at about 12.30 the accused no.1 – Alpeshbhai went to the house of complainant in drunk state, hence, mother of the complainant Savitaben told the accuse No.1 i.e. Alpeshbhai @ Pelu Himatbhai Rathod not to come to house after drinking alcohol, hence the accuse no. 1 started abusing Savitaben mother of the complainant and stabbed in forehead of savitaben with knife and at that time accuse Mukesh @ Munno came with axe and accuse Naresh came with Stick and Mukesh @ Munno gave blow with axe on head of complainant and witness and accuse Naresh cause injury to parents of complainant and in this matter by assisting one another and by illegally keeping the weapons the accused committed the offence and this sought of complaint was filed by the complainant with Valbhipur Police station, Valbhipur, District:- Bhavnagar vide CR No.1-21/2013 for Offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 326, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act. After the Complaint was filed against the accused the investigating officer filed charge sheet before the trial court and thereafter the accuses were tried for offences under Section 323, 324, 326, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and at the end of the Trial the accused were acquitted by judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur Dated 7-9-18. Hence being aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur the present petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018 before the 6th Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar but order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valbhipur Dated 7-9-18 in criminal Case No. 118 of 2013 came to be Confirmed by Learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar. Hence, present Revision Application.

3. Trial was conducted by the learned JMFC. After framing charge and leading evidence, plea was recorded by the learned Trial Court, whereby, accused pleaded not guilty. Trial was put for the evidence of prosecution. In order to establish charge against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witness precisely Exh.34, 66, 80, 81, 91, 93, 95, 96, 101 and 103, out of which, Exh. 34, 66 and 91 are deposition of persons who are alleged to have received injury, rest of them are panchas or other witnesses. In total 9 documentary evidence were produced on record vide Exh.35, 94, 97, 102, 104 to 108. Further statement of the accused was recorded and after hearing both the sides, learned Trial Court believed that petitioner has failed to establish charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted accused. State has not preferred appeal against order of acquittal. But the complainant under section 372 of Cr.P.C. preferred appeal and appeal was registered before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. The appeal is heard thoroughly and ultimately, learned Sessions Judge did not find any merit in appeal and while confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appeal was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders, complainant is before this Court by way of filing present Revision Application.

5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner – complainant. He would submit that Court below has committed serious error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that there three injured witnesses and they have deposed the incident. Their presence was not doubted and therefore, deposition of injured witnesses was required to be considered in true prospective by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. He would sub