The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence is insufficient, the benefit of doubt favors the accused.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. By way of this application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhat, District Anand, in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2020 & Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2020 below Exhibit 28. By the said order, the learned Sessions Court held the applicants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 114 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, failing which they shall further undergo SI for five days. The applicants were also found guilty under Sections 324 and 114 of the IPC and sentenced to SI for two years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, failing which they shall further undergo SI for 15 days. Additionally, they were convicted under Section 504 of the IPC and sentenced to SI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment, they shall further undergo SI for five days. Hence, this Revision Application has been filed.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants took this Court through the factual matrix of the present application and submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in recording the conviction, despite the complainant's failure to prove his case. The learned trial Court had concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to significant infirmities and contradictions. Moreover, the investigating officer was not examined, and witness Munniben was also not examined. Without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge overturned the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khambhat, Anand, who had granted the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquitted them.

4. In view of the above, it appears that the learned trial Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the present applicants. However, after the appeal was allowed, they were taken into judicial custody. They have also paid the fine amount.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue requires consideration. Hence, issue RULE returnable on 24.06.2025 Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.

5. Pending the present criminal revision application, interim relief in terms of paragraph No.8(c) is granted and sentence imposed upon the applicant vide impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhat, District Anand in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2020 is suspended and the applicants shall be released on bail by executing a fresh bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, on conditions that applicant:-

(a) shall not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

(c) shall furnish the present address of his residence to the Court concerned at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without the prior permission of this Court.

(d) shall proceed with the Criminal Revision Application as and when listed and shall not prolong the hearing of the same.

6. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

Direct service is permitted. The Registry is directed to call for Record and proceedings from the concerned Court.