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 illegality or perversity.

JUDGMENT :

(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)

[1] The present revision application is filed by the applicant - State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014 by the learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court"), wherein the appeal preferred by the State was rejected and the accused came to be acquitted from the offences leveled against them.

[2] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the complainant, namely Shantaba Balwantsinh Vaghela had filed a complaint on 26.06.2013, which was registered as C.R.No.I-68/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). The allegations leveled against the accused were that there was an altercation between the present applicant and the complainant, during which injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. In view of the same, offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC were leveled against the applicant herein. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, the investigating officer had concluded the investigation and filed the charge- sheet before the trial court. Pursuant to filing of the charge- sheet, a criminal case was registered before the learned trial court as Criminal Case No.4989 of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") by way of judgment and order dated 17.06.2014 had acquitted the respondent by giving the benefit of doubt.

[2.1] Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned trial court, the State preferred an appeal before the sessions court, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2014. The learned sessions court, by way of the impugned order dated 22.06.2017, has rejected the appeal preferred by the State and confirmed the acquittal granted by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, the State has preferred the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

[3] Though Rule has been served upon the respondent, no one remained present on behalf of the respondent.

[4] Heard Mr. Pranav Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant - State. Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has granted the benefit of acquittal mainly on the ground that there was no independent eye-witness of the incident. It ought to have been considered by the learned courts below that the incident had occurred at 6 O'clock in the morning and there was no possibility of presence of the independent eye-witnesses at that point of time. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned courts below ought to have considered the deposition of PW 4, namely Sonalba Balwantsinh Vaghela which is below Exhibit '15' and the deposition of PW 5, namely Kanuba Balwantsinh Vaghela which is below Exhibit '16', who were present at the scene of offence, engaged in farming work at the time of the incident.

[4.1] Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the learned courts below ought to have considered the deposition of the PW 9, namely Dr. Hareshkumar Gadhiya, wherein the complainant narrated the medical history. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since the depositions of the witnesses and the doctor are corroborative in nature, the same ought to have been considered by the learned courts below. In wake of such submission, Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has p