BCI to Del. HC: Foreign Lawyers and Firms Entering India Will Also be Helpful for Indian Lawyers  ||  Mad. HC: In MTP Cases, SP or DCP to be Personally Responsible if Identity of Minor Gets Leaked  ||  NCLT: Insolvency Plea by BCCI against Byju’s Admitted  ||  SC: Imprisonment Till Rising of Court is a Very Lenient Punishment for Offence of Bigamy  ||  Karnataka HC: Aim of Preventive Detention is to Ensure Peace in Society  ||  Ker. HC: Second Opinion to Determine Authenticity of Disability Certificate Can be Sought by MACT  ||  Bombay High Court: 18-Year Old Who Mowed Down Woman from his Bike, Released  ||  Supreme Court: There Should be Proactive Participation of Trial Court in Trials  ||  SC Strikes Down Resolution Merging One Community in Backward Class to another Community of SC List  ||  Tel. HC: Wife of Man in Vegetative State Appointed as Legal Guardian of His Property    

Nilkamal Ishwardas Gajbhiye vs. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:12) - (High Court of Bombay) (02 Jan 2024)

Revisional Court cannot substitute its opinion simply because another view is possible



The Applicant-Original accused has questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court has allowed the appeal partly. Resultantly, the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate convicting the applicant under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been set aside, however, the order convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of the IPC has been upheld.

The fact remains that, the three witnesses have testified against applicant, which evidence has been accepted by the Courts below. Learned counsel could not point out patent illegality committed by the Courts below to revisit the evidence. Further the evidence of witnesses is supported by Doctor's evidence. The injuries sustained by Head Mistress speak volumes about the assault committed by the applicant. The defence of false implication is, therefore, ruled out.

It is well settled that this Court, being revisional Court, cannot touch the factual aspects of the matter and re-appreciate the evidence unless it is shown/found that the Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction which they are supposed to or have committed a patent illegality. It is further well settled that the revisional Court cannot substitute its opinion simply because another view is possible and unless there is patent illegality on the face of record which may lead to miscarriage of justice, the revisional Court will not exercise its diligence over the matter.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh while dealing with the murder trial has commented upon appreciation of evidence and sufficiency of proof of the incident. The Court noted that in the situation of post incident trauma and shock caused to the witness, deposition about every detail with accuracy, cannot be expected from him. On the point of lapse of investigation, the Supreme Court noted that though the weapon was not recovered, the prosecution case has been proved by medical evidence corroborated by testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the conviction is maintained.

In the present case as well, the evidence on the point of assault has been not only spelt out in the testimony of the injured P.W. 2 but also by the eye witness P.W. 3 which stood corroborated by Doctor P.W. 4. The lapse of Investigating Officer in not seizing bucket will, therefore, be of no significance.There is absolutely no merit in the case. Petition dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved