IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 655 of 2026 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

1 of 2026 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 655 of 2026 ==========================================================

BIPINBHAI MANGABHAI PATEL & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

JIGNESHKUMAR P PANDAV(8297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 NENCY J AMIN(8864) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 NIRMIT ATULBHAI DIXIT(8853) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 12/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr. Jigneshkumar P.Pandav for the applicants has submitted that the Trial Court has acquitted the revisionists under Section 323, 504, 506 and 114 of IPC as well as under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

1.1 The State has challenged the said judgment by preferring the appeal before the appellate Court, wherein the appellate Court by quashing the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicted both the revisionists and sentenced them under Section 323 of IPC for two months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment, under Section

504 of IPC for four months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment, under Section 506(2) of IPC for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment, under Section 114 of IPC for three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment and under Section 135 of the G.P. Act for four months simple imprisonment. All the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently and set off was also granted.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Pandav referring to the deposition of the witnesses has stated that all have turned hostile, even the complainant has completely not supported his own case and certain contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition was required to be considered by the appellate Court, which had been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court.

3. Countering the argument, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the appellate Court has full authority under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to reexamine and reappreciate the evidence, thus, learned APP has rightly considered the evidence of the witnesses, and the presence of the complainant was considered to be proved and the evidence, as recorded in the medical papers were found sufficient to conclude the Conviction. Thus, learned APP has stated that revisionists should be directed to undergo the sentence.

4. There are two contrary observations on record; one of the Trial Court and another by the appellate Court. Most of the witnesses have turned hostile and further the analysis of the evidence of the appellate Court as well as Trial Court and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and when the revision application will take its own time to conclude, the order of sentence requires consideration.

Hence, Rule Order in Criminal Misc. Application

1. In view of the above, the sentence imposed upon the applicants - revisionists vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2023, shall remain suspended pending hearing and final disposal of the present Revision Application and the applicants-revisionists herein is ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicants-revisionists shall; [a] pursue this Revision Applicatio