The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; significant flaws in investigation and evidence can lead to acquittal.

Order in Criminal Revision Application .By way of this application, the applicants – revisionists challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.0.0 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Railway), Godhra in Criminal Case No.2 of 20. The above sentence was challenged by way of an Appeal and the same was confirmed on .0.0 by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No. of 0. .Mr. Bhavik P.Shah, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the investigation appears to be dubious. The complainant has not given any complaint immediately after the occurrence of the offence, though had the opportunity to inform the police of Anas Police Station. Mr. Shah stated that no FIR has been registered, nor has taken any care to get the FIR registered at the next Railway Police Station.

The Doctor before whom the treatment is allegedly taken was examined before the Court, who was Vikramsinh Shyamlal Verma, Medical Officer of C.H.C., Meghnagar, who very categorically stated that the injured had come without any Police Yadi.

.Advocate Mr. Shah further stated that the G.R.P., Meghnagar, had brought Pritesh Mohanlal Bhatpuriya and Kamlesh Dolatsinh Damor before the Doctor, and according to Doctor one was injured on hand and another was on head, and they were admitted in the hospital and had been as indoor patients for one day. Mr. Shah stated that victim had not given any history of the loot by the present applicants – revisionists.

.Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Doctor in cross-examination had admitted that he had not noted any history and had not even noted about the weapons with which the injury could be caused. The police had not come with ‘Yadi’ for treatment. The MLC form was not filled up by the Doctor and probabilities of injury by other means has been accepted by the Doctor in the cross examination.

.Advocate Mr. Shah further stated that witness – Ahbaysinh as being in-charge PSI, in absence of investigating officer, without any authorization had taken the investigation and had recorded the statement of the present accused.

Mr. Shah submitted that the PSI, who had apprehended the accused, was not authorized to record the statement, and had the accused committed such offence, he could have produced them before the Magistrate for recording of the statement, rather the investigating officer himself recorded the statement and produced them in the court custody, and only the arrest has been done by P.W.. While again the investigation was handed back to Shri Bhariya.

.Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that Pritesh Mohanlal Bhatpuriya and his friend Kunvar Pratapsinh and Pritesh’s mother were travelling together; while, complainant - Kamlesh Dolatsinh Damor, who alleged to be eye witness, has not sustained any injury, and stated in the cross- examination that since the incident had occurred at night, he cannot identify the accused. The brother of the complainant Harishbhai Damor is also alleged to be an eye witness, who has also stated before the Court that even if the accused are present before the Court, he could not identify them.

.Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that though identification parade was conducted, by Pritesh Mohanlal Bhatpuriya and Kunvarpratapsinh Rupsinh Thakor, the said has not been by the complainant, which itself creates doubt. Mr. Shah stated that the investigation is tainted, since the police had gone to Pritesh’s house to record the statement of Pritesh and mother at their house.

.Advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that panchas had turned hostile and recovery panchnama do not specify the marks of sword and knife. Mr. Shah stated that if three to four witnesses were injured by sword and knife, then such weapons would carry the blood marks. Mr. Shah stated that the police had not collected the train tickets from any of the witness to corroborate the fact that they were travelling in the memo train. Mr. Shah further submitted that sim-card and mobile, which have b