4 Whether This Case Involves A … vs Vishvas Brijeshvar Tyagi & 2 on 1 November, 2017

R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7379 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 528 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? NO

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? NO

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
NO
any order made thereunder ?

STATE OF GUJARAT….Applicant(s)
Versus
VISHVAS BRIJESHVAR TYAGI 2….Respondent(s)

Appearance:

IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7379 OF 2015:
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP for the Applicant
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondents Nos. 1 – 3

IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2015:
MR ARCHIT P JANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP for the Respondent No.1
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondents Nos.2 – 4

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 01/11/2017

Page 1 of 6

HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

1 The criminal revision application is at the instance of the original 
first informant (victim). Whereas the special criminal application under 
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the State of 
Gujarat. In both the matters, the challenge is to the legality and validity 
of   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge, 
Mehsana,   dated   9th  June   2015,   by   which   the   learned   Sessions   Judge 
dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2013 filed by the victim against 
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th May 2013 passed by the 
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahucharaji in the Criminal Case No.425 
of   2008   and   also   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Additional 
Sessions   Judge,   Mehsana   dated   9th  June   2015   by   which   the   Sessions 
Judge dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2013 filed by the State. 

2 It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record   that   the   revisionist, 
namely, Manjulika Virendrakumar Tyagi initiated proceedings against her 
husband   and   her   in­laws   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Sections 
498A, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and 
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court, after due 
appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted all the three accused of 
all   the   charges.   The   acquittal   appeal   filed   by   the   victim   before   the 
Appellate Court also came to be dismissed. It appears that the State of 
Gujarat   also   preferred   an   acquittal   appeal   against   the   judgment   and 
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and the same came to be 
dismissed. 

3 In  such circumstances referred to above, both, the  original  first 
informant as well as the State of Gujarat are here before this Court with 
their respective petitions. 

Page 2 of 6

HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

4 Mr. Devnani, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing 

for the State took me through the evidence on record. Mr. Devnani, the 
learned A.P.P. with his usual fairness pointed out that the Trial Court as 
well as the Appellate Court, after due appreciation of the evidence on 
record, has thought fit not to believe the case put up by the prosecution. 
The learned A.P.P. very fairly pointed out that both the Courts, after due 
appreciation of the evidence on record, has reached to the conclusion 
that   the   prosecution   has   not   been   able   to   prove   its   case   beyond 
reasonable doubt so far as the offence punishable under Sections 498A 
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Mr. Devnani, the learned 
A.P.P.  also  took   me  through  the  evidence   of   the   Medical   Officer   and 
pointed  out  that  the  allegations  of  assault  are  also not  substantiated. 
This is a case in which the victim as well as the State are aggrieved by 
the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts. 

5 Mr.   Archit   Jani,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   victim 
vehemently   submitted   that   the   case   on   hand   is   one   of   perverse 
appreciation of evidence. Mr. Jani, the learned counsel submitted that 
the material evidence has not been taken into consideration by both the 
Trial Court as  well  as by  the  Appellate  Court. In  such circumstances, 
according   to   Mr.   Jani,   the   case   on   hand   is   one   of   failure   of   justice. 
According to Mr. Jani, if that be so, then it would be within the powers 
of this Court to order a retrial. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jani 
has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) D. Stephens vs. Nasibolla [1951 SCR 284 : AIR 1951 SC 196]

(2)  K.   Chinnawamy  Reddy   vs.   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and 
another [(1963) 3 SCR 412 : AIR 1962 SC 1788]

Page 3 of 6

HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

(3)  Daungarshi   Madanlal   Zunzunwala   vs.   M/s.   Deviprasad 
Omprakash Bajoria and another  [1985 SCC online  Bom 322 : 

1985 Cri. L.J. 1943]

(4)  Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai and another  [(2003) 12 SCC 
395]

(5) Hydru vs. State of Kerala [(2004) 13 SCC 374]

(6)  Navnitbhai   Harmanbhai   Patel   vs.   State   of   Gujarat   and 
others [2016(4) GLR 3050]

6 Mr. A.J.  Yagnik,   the   learned  counsel   appearing  for   the   accused 
persons   submitted   that   after   proper   appreciation   of   the   evidence   on 
record,   the   Trial   Court   acquitted   all   the   accused   persons   and   the 
Appellate Court, after due re­appreciation of the evidence, has thought 
fit to concur with the view taken by the Trial Court. He would submit 
that the case on hand is not one where this Court should order a retrial 
on   the   ground   that   the   acquittal   has   led   to   miscarriage   of   justice   or 
failure of justice. 

7 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and 
having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls 
for my consideration is whether any case for retrial is made out. 

8 Ordinarily,   in   the   following   categories   of   cases,   this   Court,   in 
exercise   of   its   supervisory   jurisdiction   under   Article   227   of   the 
Constitution  of India  or in  exercise  of its  revisional  jurisdiction  under 
Sections 401 read with 397 of the Cr.P.C., would be justified in ordering 
a retrial: 

Page 4 of 6

HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

[I] Where the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but 
has still acquitted the accused;

[II] Where the Trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which 
the prosecution wished to produce; 

[III] Where the Appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence 
which was admitted by the Trial Court to be inadmissible; 

[IV] Where the material evidence has been overlooked (either) 
by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court; and 

[V] Where   the   acquittal   is   based   on   the   compounding   of   the 
offence which is invalid under the law. 

9 Having considered the scope of the power to order retrial, in my 
view, the same is not warranted in the case in hand. One may not fully 
agree with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the 
Appellate Court, but as explained by the Supreme Court that by itself, is 
not   sufficient   to   order   a   retrial.   Something   substantial   or   more   is 
required to order a retrial in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, supervisory 
or the revisional jurisdiction. An order for retrial of a criminal case is 
made in exceptional cases and not unless the Court is satisfied that the 
trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of 
misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in 
substance,   there   had   been   no   real   trial   or   that   the   prosecutor   or   an 
accused was for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from 
leading   or   tendering   evidence   to   the   charge   and   in   the   interests   of 
justice,   the   Court   deems   it   appropriate,   having   regard   to   the 

Page 5 of 6

HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/7379/2015 JUDGMENT

circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on his trial 
again. 

10 In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that no case is 
made out for retrial. 

11 In the result, both the petitions fail and are hereby rejected. Rule stands 
discharged. 

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
chandresh

Page 6 of 6

HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Thu Nov 02 00:24:19 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *