Gujarat High Court
Shambhubhai Valabhai vs Jivanbhai Govinbhai Sarvaiya & 4 on 16 September, 2015
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.RA/78/1997 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
==========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SHAMBHUBHAI VALABHAI....Applicant(s)
Versus
JIVANBHAI GOVINBHAI SARVAIYA & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MOXA THAKKER, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 16/09/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Revision Application is preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in respect of the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 23 00:45:59 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/78/1997 JUDGMENT charges under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that no appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the acquittal. It is settled legal position that the jurisdiction of the Court in the Revision Application against acquittal is circumscribed. Even the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is circumscribed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to lay hands on any of the evidence to show as to how the impugned order can be interfered with under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the contrary, it appears from the history given to the doctor by the deceased herself that no such cruelty was meted out to her. It appears initially only entry about the death was made and it was only after about six months, the Police Officer himself made the complaint and FIR was recorded, that too without explanation of delay. It also appears two dying declarations of the deceased formed the part of evidence wherein also the deceased recorded the accidental death. Thus, in absence of the material establishing causation of gross injustice, there is no question of this Court interfering in its revisional jurisdiction.
3. Under the circumstances, the Revision Application fails and is dismissed.
Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 23 00:45:59 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/78/1997 JUDGMENT (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) rakesh/ Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Sep 23 00:45:59 IST 2015