Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
PRANAV TRIVEDI
Ramsinh Kalyanji Bihari – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
1. Present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred, inter alia, challenging order dated 7.12.2016 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham – Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2013 confirming the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham- Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 1406 of 2004.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application is that one Kasam Kherudin Maniyar filed a complaint on 21.4.2004 at 00:45 hours, before the Gandhidham Police Station, which came to be numbered as C.R. No. I-159 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It was the case of the prosecution that on 20.4.2004 at around 18:30 hours, applicant and other accused had abused, accused and beaten as well as threatened the complainant which resulted into injuries being inflicted to the complainant. The applicant and other accused persons were arrested on 22.4.2004. On
Misreading of evidence by trial and appellate Courts constitutes a manifest illegality, justifying the High Court's intervention in revisional jurisdiction.
The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited, and the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest illegalit....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness statements undermine conviction.
The court emphasized the significance of injured witnesses' testimony in convicting and modifying sentences, reaffirming the stance that reliance on interested witnesses is acceptable if corroborated....
The conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld based on reliable witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence, affirming that defects in investigation do not negate the prosecution's case.
The court established that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and contradictions in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny.
The evidentiary value of an injured witness is significant, and their testimony should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
Inconsistencies in the evidence and failure to properly appreciate the material on record can lead to a manifest error of law, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
