Credibility of evidence in criminal proceedings necessitates corroboration; a victim's uncorroborated testimony does not suffice for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1638 of 2004, as accused No.1 was convicted by an order dated 13.08.2004 by learned Sessions Judge 4^th Fast Track Court, Morbi in Sessions Case No.9 of 1999. The appellant came to be convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of fifteen days rigorous imprisonment and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short “B.P. Act”) with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further ten days rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The trial was against the present appellant and his wife under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the B.P. Act. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.2 from all the charges.

3. The facts of the case, which led to filing of the charge-sheet against the accused can be briefly stated as under:

3.1 Manharbhai Maujibhai Patel resident of village Vejalpur during his treatment at Morbi Hospital filed a complaint on 08.10.1998 alleging that both the accused had beaten him on 08.10.1998 at about 19.00 p.m. to 19.30 p.m at the outskirt of his village, while he and his friend Kantilal Karsanbhai Patel were both sitting on an Otta. At that time, Ganpat Manji Patel and his wife Gauriben Ganpat Patel suddenly came there, Ganpat Manji was having an iron pipe and he gave a blow with the iron pipe on right hand, complainant sustained injury near the wrist and second blow was on the back and the third blow was on the right leg. Thereafter, Gauriben took the iron pipe from the hands of Ganpatbhai and gave one blow on the frontal part of head of the complainant. Since the complainant started bleeding, both the accused left the place. As he was bleeding, he went home and informed his father and mother. The cause of the beating, the complainant stated, was that he was having relation with the daughter of the accused.

3.2 The complainant was taken on a motorcycle by Patel Babubhai Kada of the village at Khakhrechi dispensary and after taking the treatment he was taken to Government Hospital in Ambulance, where he was admitted.

3.3 The complaint was filed alleging that Ganpat Manji and his wife Gauri because of the reason of their daughter had intention to kill the complainant, therefore, with iron pipe had beaten him on hand, leg, shoulder and head causing injuries.

4. The offence was registered at Morbi City Police Station and thereafter transferred to Malia-Miyana Police Station registered as C.R. No.94/98 for the investigation. As per the record Criminal Case No.231/98 was registered by JMFC, First Class. Since the offence under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court, Morbi, where was registered as Sessions Case No.9 of 1999.

5. Criminal Revision Application No.814 of 2004 was filed by de facto complainant – Manharbhai Maujibhai Patel under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘ Cr.P.C .’) making a prayer to quash the acquittal of accused-Gauriben W/o. Ganpatbhai Manjibhai Patel, and to held both the accused guilty under the charge of Section 307 IPC or alternatively under Section 326 or 325, and to suitably punish the accused as per the provisions of law.

6. Learned advocate Mr. P.T. Jasani for the respondent – accused in the revision petition raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C ., stating that the complainant as a victim would have no jurisdiction to file revision petition, as at the relevant time in the year 2004, there was no such provision in Cr.P.C . and for the very first time under Section 372 Cr.P.C . by way of proviso with effect from 31.12.2009, the victim was granted the right to prefer an appeal against o