Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/262/2008 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 262 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KARANABHAI
NATHABHAI BHARWAD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ SHASTRI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 03/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
We
have considered the the whole evidence on record, including the
cross-complaint and the evidence led in support of the case of the
complainant, who is Accused No.1 (A-1) in Crminal Appeal No.1296 of
2007. Criminal Appeal No.1296 of 2007 has been partly allowed by
our separate judgement, wherein the evidence, which came on record
has been elaborately considered. We have also considered that the
record of Sessions Case No.90 of 2002. In view of the reasons
recorded by us in the judgement of Criminal Appeal No.1296 of 2007,
coupled with the important aspects that the original complainant
herein together with the other persons had gone to the place of
Nimuben Gobarbhai and there was active attempt to kidnap her by
dragging her into the street and further role played by them in
commission of the said offence with the circumstance of giving fatal
blow to Rajabhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad, by the complainant herein, who
ultimately succumbed to the injuries, goes to show that it is at the
time when the complainant and other persons committed the offence,
which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.1296 of 2007, the
villagers and other people intervened and they have sustained
injuries. But such injuries appear to have been caused to protect
the victim and to prevent the complainant and other persons from
further committing offence of kidnapping of the victim. It is on
account of the intervention by the other persons and the villagers,
such attempt to kidnap was resisted and at that stage the injuries
were received by the complainant and other persons, who are accused
in Criminal Appeal No.1296 of 2007. If any other persons, including
the villagers have resisted and protected the victim Nimuben coupled
with the circumstances of no satisfactory evidences led for
commission of evidence, it appears to us that the learned Sessions
Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the accused for the
offence of Sessions Case No.90 of 2002. If the aforesaid aspect is
considered, keeping in view all the evidences, which came on record
against the complainant herein, who are accused in Criminal Appeal
No.1296 of 2007, it appears to us that it would not be a case for
taking a different view than the view taken by the learned Sessions
Judge. Even if this views are possible, acquittal cannot be
converted into conviction. It also appears to us that the revision
is only by way of counter blast to resist the conviction made to the
accused in Sessions Case No.36/2001.
Hence,
the revision being meritless is dismissed.
(Jayant Patel, J.)
3.3.2010 (Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
vinod
Top