This is a Revision Application preferred by original first informant - Hussainkhan Malik, who lodged an FIR with Sayla Police Station vide CR No.95 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Post FIR, investigation was made, charge-sheet filed and trial proceeded before learned JMFC, Sayla in Criminal Case No.133 of 1998. The said case was disposed of by judgment and order dated 28/12/2005 by learned JMFC, Sayla camp at Muli, acquitting the accused persons - respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein, and hence this revision application. 2. Learned Advocate Ms.Meghna Patel for Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned Advocate for the revisionist has taken this Court through the judgment as well as the relevant evidence, and submitted that learned JMFC has overlooked the medical evidence showing injury suffered by the victims and also overlooked the evidence of Executive Magistrate, who had conducted the test identification parade, and, hence, thereby committed an error in recording acquittal.
3. Having examined the judgment impugned and the evidence on record, what emerges is that the first informant has failed to identify the accused persons as the assailants in the Court; whereas, injured witness - Chhaganbhai has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case at all. The resultant effect is that the fact that the accused persons were the assailants and were involved in the incident, is not proved before the trial Court.
3.1 Besides the above major defect, it is also found that as per the first informant, he knew the assailants by name. As such, there was no need or occasion for the Investigating Agency to have conducted the T.I. parade. Be that as it may, fact remains that deposition of the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. parade, Mr.Vijaybhai Sagathiya, Prosecution Witness No.17, runs contrary to the T.I. parade, panchnama of which was prepared contemporaneously and, therefore, the evidence of the Executive Magistrate cannot advance the case of the prosecution any further.
4. If, with above major defects, learned Magistrate has recorded an acquittal giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, no error can be said to have been committed by him. The order does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Application must fail and stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura