R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 576 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================ ILIYASH ISHAKJI KHATRI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ============================================ Appearance: MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BOMI H SETHNA(5864) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,9 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 8 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 20/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) By way of present criminal revision application the applicant has assailed the order dated 23.06.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.63 of 2003, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Camp Ankleshwar, Bharuch, (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “learned Sessions Judge”), whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to acquit the respondents – accused nos.2 to 14, from the charges R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 levelled against them. 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Tirmizi for the applicant, learned Advocate Mr. B. H. Sethna, for respondent nos. 2 to 7, 9 to 14 and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval, for the respondent – State. 3) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an eyewitness and one of the victim of the offence dated 03.03.2002 registered as C. R. No.I-31 of 2002 with Zaghadiya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 295, 436 153(A), 307, 325, 427, 186 and 187 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the BP Act inter alia alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR had committed the alleged offences. That the charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Zaghadia. That the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch as Sessions Case No.63 of 2003, wherein, vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 all the accused came to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved with the said order the applicant has filed the present revision application. 4) Learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Tirmizi for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is bad in the law and R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 contrary to the facts of the case and the learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence, more particularly evidence of the complainant. He has further submitted that though the complainant has categorically gave the names of accused persons who had participated in the alleged offence and specifically stated about their involvement in commission of the offence, the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the allegations levelled in the complaint at Exhibit 66. The role of accused nos.2 to 14 are specifically established on record though the learned trial Court has committed error in acquitting them. The oral evidence of the complainant at Exhibit 65 is eye witness and he has categorically stated the names of accused persons who participated and identified them before the Court. Even the police witnesses are also examined and they have supported the case of prosecution. The involvement of the accused persons is proved. Looking to the aforesaid evidence the participation and forming unlawful assembly is proved on record. The panchnama and CDs clearly reveal that huge damage was done to the properties belong to Muslim Community in Bharuch. The panchnama reflects that damage was done by the accused persons. Even the Doctor examined has also stated that the injured persons also taken the treatment. Though the learned Sessions Judge has materially erred in appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, he has requested to allow the present revision R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 application and convict the respondents in accordance with law. So far scope of revision application is concerned learned Advocate has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which are as under :- (1) Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju Vs Bonapalli Peda Appadu, reported in 1975 LawSuit(SC)230; (2) Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1997 LawSuit(SC) 702; (3) Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1962 LawSuit(SC) 34; (4) K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1962 LawSuit(SC) 220; (5) Khetra Basi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 1969 LawSuit(SC) 276; (6) D Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, reported in 1951 LawSuit(SC) 14; (7) Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, reported in 1967 LawSuit(SC) 310. By relying on the above judgments the learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that this Hon’ble Court has power and private parties have locus standi to challenge the impugned judgment by way of filing a revision application. Page 4 of 11 R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 5) Learned Advocate Mr. B. H. Sethna, for the respondent nos. 2 to 7, 9 to 14, has opposed the present application and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error more particularly considering the delay in the FIR and there is no direct evidence which suggests involvement of the respondents even the complainant having no personal knowledge about the involvement of the respondents. All the witnesses are found unreliable. All the interested witnesses are also examined. Mere incident took place and damage was caused but no evidence is there as to who had caused the damage and there is glaring infirmity and contradiction in the evidence of witnesses who are planted and unreliable. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present revision application. 6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perusing the record and proceedings it appears that on 03.03.2002, post Godhra Riots, the alleged incident took place and the respondent no.2 Nilesh Solanki has incited the mob of Hindu Community against Muslim Community, pursuant to which mob made assault to the residents of Muslim Community and set on fire their residence and belongings. In this regard the complaint came to be lodged. Further it is alleged that while residence are set on fire at that time the accused no.11 who was R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 holding the post of Vice-President of Taluka Panchayat, Jaghadiya, has not facilitated fire extinguisher and thereby committed offence of rioting by hatching unlawful assembly with common object they had made assault. In order to prove the said incident the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and produced 17 documentary evidence on record. After perusing the evidence of prosecution, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to acquit the accused persons by extending benefit of doubt. The panch witnesses were turned hostile. If we peruse the evidence of the complainant at Exhibit 65, he has not completely supported his version. In the cross- examination he failed to identify the accused persons. The Court has not believed the evidence of the said witness trustworthy. The Doctor Suketu S. Dave, examined at Exhibit 56, has stated that one Ibrahim sustained injury in the alleged riots but he came for the treatment after two days. The witness no.5 Fazalhusain Sayed is a hearsay witness having no personal knowledge as to who had damaged the property. His residential home was destroyed but he remained silent about who had damaged his property. The witness no.6 Kayamuddin Shaikh has stated that at the time of incident a mob of 200 people came with stones and the residences of muslim community were set R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 on fire and ran away from the spot and returned after three days and except this he has not stated about involvement. The witness no.7 Mohammadhusain Ansari has also stated on the same line as of the witness no.6, that a mob came and have caused damage of Rs.60,000/- but he has not specifically stated about involvement of the accused and only stated that the mob was shouting and assaulted muslim people. The Police Constable Dilipbhai Budhalal after 15 days assumed his duty and he is also not aware of any incident and has not stated anything about the involvement of the accused. The witness no.14 Narendra Natwarbhai, Police Constable, has stated about the incident and tried to control the mob of 100 people armed with deadly weapons and called the PSI Shaikh Mayoddin Shaikh, and fired three rounds and dispersed the mob but no involvement of the accused by name is mentioned. 7) If we consider the evidence as per the case of revisionist eye- witness Iliyash Ishakji Khatri examined at Exhibit 33, has stated that the mob consisting Dilip Modi, Mukesh Solanki, Nilesh Chaman, Rakeshbhai Dahyabhai, Hitesh Patel were present. He has identified five accused who were present in the mob but he remained silent about their roles and overt act. The learned trial Court has considered the fact that there presence may be natural due to curiosity more particularly when the said witness R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 returned home at that time refrigerator, utensils and cupboards were safe and once again he returned on 5th from Rajpardi his belongings were stolen. Hence, perusing the said evidence it appears that as to whether his belongings were stolen on 3rd or 4th date is not established on record as the alleged incident took place on 03.03.2002 and on next day his belongings were safe as per his own version. Even he has not stated anything to the police on next day. He has explained the delay in lodging the complaint as he approached DSP and thereafter he has registered the complaint but initially he has given names of three accused in the inquiry and in deposition he has given names of five accused. There is even defence able to prove that the son of the said witness has solemnized the marriage with Hindu girl the inimical relationship between two communities one complaint was also lodged. Even he knows other witnesses Bachusha Diwan and Gulamnabi Khatri who are interested witnesses due to the reason that they were running business in rented shops which got vacated by their landlords or encroachment notice came to be issued. Hence, for reallotment of the shops they are pressurizing the landlords and said fact emerged from the record. 8) If for the sake of arguments we accept that three accused namely Yogeshbhai, Mukeshbhai and Rakeshbhai hurled abusive R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 language and shouted that RDX is traced out from Rajpardi and shouting against muslim community is not enough to connect the accused persons with the offence. Considering the time gap and in absence of continuity and direct evidence to connect with the offence. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The other witnesses who claimed themselves as eye-witnesses had turned hostile and against them offences are registered and grievance is there. It is needless to say that bad character is irrelevant however enmity or grudge is required to be considered. The witness no.8 Ibrahimsha Diwan is also a hearsay witness having no personal knowledge. Even in evidence also improvement is found and learned Sessions Judge has also considered the said aspect. Even prior to the complaint, one application came to be given to DSP wherein no names of accused were given. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration that the names of accused persons are not given in the complaint and the charge- sheet is not filed against whom such names were given. During the course of trial it clearly reveals that witnesses tried to improve their version to involve more persons. Considering the time gap in the alleged incident and lodging of the complaint and thereafter more particularly no specific overt act is stated and complaint was filed against the mob, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in appreciating the R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 evidence and even we peruse the CDs at Exhibits 86 to 89, wherein, also no evidence is there which suggests the involvement of the accused. In view of above the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence. It is needless to say that when two possible views emerge from the evidence of the prosecution then view favouring the accused is required to be given weightage. 9) Now while exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code is discretionary and it is required to be used only in exceptional cases where glaring defect in the procedure and manifest error of law or there has been miscarriage of justice. Here no any such error is pointed out or no perversity is found from the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion. Even in revisional jurisdiction the Court has to be more careful in reappreciating the fact or evidence as revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide reappreciation of evidence and considering the limited jurisdiction the Court cannot act as Appellate Court. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings in light of scope of the scope of revision laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460. Page 10 of 11 R/CR.RA/576/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 10) In view of above, the present Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 18:31:20