THAKOR ARJANJI SARDARJI(Abated)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/382/2015                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 382 of 2015


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting               Yes        No
                                                         √
==========================================================
            THAKOR ARJANJI SARDARJI(Abated) & ORS.
                              Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4
MR JIGNESHKUMAR P PANDAV(8297) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                          Date : 09/03/2026
                            JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicants
have requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Mahesana, at Visnagar in Criminal Appeal No.19/2013 and to
conFrm the judgment and order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No.408/2001.


[2.0] Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, learned advocate
for respondent No.1 and learned APP for respondent No.1.




                                Page 1 of 4
   R/CR.RA/382/2015                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026




[3.0] Perusing the record, it appears that during the pendency of
present criminal revision application, parties have arrived at
settlement and as the appellate Court has been pleased to convict the
applicants for the oGence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325
and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and ordered
to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The coordinate Bench
in its order dated 07.11.2025 has observed that parties have arrived at
amicable settlement and aHdavit of injured witnesses in this regard is
placed on record and even the parties had remained present before
the coordinate Bench and had consented for quashing and setting
aside the conviction of present applicants recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge however, the matter requires consideration qua
oGence under Section 326 read with Section 114 of the IPC
considering the provision of section 320 of the IPC.


[4.0] Perusing the record, it appears that the learned trial Court has
been pleased to acquit the accused persons on 10.05.2013 giving the
beneFt of doubt. In order to prove the case before the learned trial
Court, the complainant was examined at Exh.68, witness Thakor
Ambaben Chanduji at Exh.70 and both these witnesses were injured
eye-witnesses, panch witness Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Thakor Jodhaji Ramanji
and Thakor Prahladji Laxmanji examined respectively at Exhs.72 and
74 have turned hostile and witness Nos.5 and 6 i.e. Thakor Jivanji
Karshanji and Thakor Balwanji Pratapji are examined respectively at
Exhs.81 and 87, Dr. Mansangbhai Laljibhai Chaudhary is examined at
Exh.91 and witness No.8 Parmar Maganbhai Mulabhai is examined at
Exh.96. The complaint is produced at Exh.69, panchnama at Exh.73 and
injury certiFcates are produced respectively at Exhs.92 and 94.
Perusing the said evidence, learned trial Court come to the conclusion
that no speciFc evidence is produced on record and there is

                                Page 2 of 4
   R/CR.RA/382/2015                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026




contradiction in the evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court
extended the beneFt of doubt to the accused persons but in the
appeal, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons for
the oGence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 read with
Section 114 of the IPC based on the evidence of two injured eye-
witnesses, as the learned trial Court come to the conclusion that
accused persons were under the inLuence of alcohol, they were
unable to inLict any indiscriminate blow or any injury to the injured
witnesses but learned appellate Court come to the conclusion that axe
was used by the accused No.1 – Thakor Arjanji Sardarji (now deceased)
and he made an assault and said fact is also not in dispute. The injury
falls in the purview of section 320 of the IPC and conviction was
recorded but during the pendency of the present revision application,
accused No.1 – Thakor Arjanji Sardarji expired and therefore, the case
came to be abated qua accused No.1. However, as the oGences under
Sections 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 114 of the IPC are
already settled between the parties and coordinate Bench has
recorded the settlement qua oGence under Sections 323, 324 and 325
of the IPC only, this Court is of considered view that the allegation qua
oGence under Section 326 of the IPC were only against accused No.1,
who is now no more, considering the compromise between the parties
and the fact that the oGence is of the year 2001 and initially on
10.05.2013, accused persons were given beneFt of doubt and
thereafter, the appellate Court has been pleased to convict on
02.07.2015 and considering the long drawn battle between the parties
and settlement having been arrived at after 26 years and as parties
and victims have suGered a lot for such a long time, it would be
appropriate and better to restore the relationship between the
parties based on compromise and this Court deems it Ft without
discussing further on merits, particularly considering the allegation of

                                Page 3 of 4
    R/CR.RA/382/2015                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026




assault against accused No.1, who is now no more, the injury which
falls under the grievous hurt deFned under Section 320 of the IPC, in
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.N.
Pandakumar vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025 INSC 37,
present revision application deserves consideration.


[5.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application is
allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed by
the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, at Visnagar in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
judgment and order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No.408/2001 is hereby
conFrmed. Present revision application is disposed of in aforesaid
terms.


                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/03/2026 17:37:29




                                                    Page 4 of 4