In criminal revision against acquittal, courts must show clear evidence of error or injustice for appeal. Acquittals are upheld unless substantial proof against accused emerges.

JUDGMENT :

L. S. PIRZADA, J.

1) Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2) The present revision application has been filed by the applicants, namely applicant Nos. 1 and 2, in connection with an unfortunate incident that took place in March 2002. This revision application has been preferred by applicant Nos. 1 and 2 against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were the original accused, challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 4th Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 258 of 2003. By the judgment dated 17.02.2006, the learned trial court acquitted the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 — the present respondent nos. 2 to 4 — for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 302, 307, 332, 436, 337, and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code , as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3) The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned advocate for the applicants is that the complainant was the P.I. - Mr. Goswami and the preliminary investigation was carried out by Mr. Goswami and thereafter, the investigation was transferred to another police officer and in the charge sheet, there is sufficient and cogent evidence against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Further, he has submitted that the learned trial Judge, without considering the deposition of the present applicants, the factum of the incident i.e. PW-17 and PW-10 examined below Exhibit-60 and Exhibit-53 before the learned Sessions Judge. So far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, she is the wife of the deceased – Dilavarkhan Pathan, who has supported the story of the complainant. Further, some of the witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. Without considering the deposition of the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused. Further, he has submitted that the police witnesses who have deposed before the Court have supported the case of the prosecution and from the deposition of the police personnel, it is established by the prosecution that on the fateful day i.e. 29.03.2002, the incident took place, a mob of 1500 to 2000 people came and thereafter, they pelted stones, soda bottles, acid bulbs and also threw thick coarse materials (in vernacular language “kakado”). Further, he has submitted that even the witnesses have been injured and they have deposed before the Court, but the deposition has not been properly evaluated by the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the deposition of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and passed the judgment of acquittal. Further, Dr. Hemang Rameshchandra Shah, who has been examined as PW-21 vide Exhibit-68, has supported the case of the prosecution and this aspect has also not been considered. Hence, considering this, the present revision application is required to be allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are to be convicted and sentenced.

4) On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt on behalf of the State supported the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that no interference is required. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli is representing the respondent no.3 – original accused and submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is just and proper and does not require any interference. So far as the respondent no.2 is concerned, he has been duly served but chose not to appear. So far as the respondent no.4 is concerned, the original accused has already been expired during the pendency of this revision application.

5) Considering the judgment passed by th