AATSIBEN DHIRENBHAI SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.RA/558/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL)
                   NO. 558 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

============================================
      Approved for Reporting Yes    No

============================================
                   AATSIBEN DHIRENBHAI SHAH
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 02/04/2026

                                 JUDGMENT

(1)       By way of present criminal revision application the applicant has

          assailed the judgment and order dated 19.05.2017, in Criminal

          Case No.351 of 2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief

          Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.22, Ahmedabad (who shall

          hereinafter be referred to as “learned trial Court”), whereby,

          the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused from the

          charges levelled against them by extending benefit of doubt as

          well as judgment and order dated 13.11.2019, in Criminal



                                   Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.RA/558/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          Appeal No.667 of 2017, passed by the learned Additional

          Sessions Judge, Court No.21, City Civil & Sessions Court,

          Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed

          the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned

          trial Court. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned orders the

          applicant – original complainant has filed the present revision

          application against acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to 5 –

          original accused.


(2)       Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik B. Barot, for the applicant and

          learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak, for the respondent – State.


(3)       The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant –

          original complainant has filed a complaint being I-C.R.No.176 of

          2011 registered with Ellis Bridge Police Station, for the offences

          punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal

          Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

          After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has

          filed a charge-sheet against the accused. That the learned

          Magistrate     has   framed     charge      against   the   accused      and

          conducted the trial. After appreciating the evidence produced on

          record the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit all the

          accused from the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, the

          complainant has challenged the said order by filing Criminal

          Appeal which came to be dismissed by upholding the order of



                                        Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.RA/558/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          acquittal.

(4)       Learned Advocate for the applicant – original complainant has

          submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered

          that the FIR is never ever an encyclopedia of the prosecution

          case but is merely a starting point to set the criminal machinery

          into motion. He has further submitted that if a lady comes up

          with a case of mental and physical cruelty it is for the defence

          on the contrary to disprove the case of the prosecution by

          leading truthful evidence suggestive of no physical and mental

          harassment ever caused. He has further submitted that both the

          Courts have committed error while ignoring the evidence of the

          complainant which corroborated by the evidence of her parents

          and Doctor the allegation of torture caused to her on 15.12.2010

          is revealed but as she was examined after two days of the

          incident non finding of injury can never be a ground to disprove

          the allegations of the harassment. Hence, he has requested to

          allow the present revision application.

(5)       Learned APP for the respondent – State has opposed the present

          revision application and submitted that both the Courts below

          have properly appreciated the evidence produced on record.


(6)       Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

          and perusing the record and proceedings it appears that the

          alleged incident took place between 31.12.2001 to 13.12.2010



                                    Page 3 of 5
R/CR.RA/558/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




    alleging mental and physical harassment meted out by the

    accused. The prosecution has relied upon compliant at Exhibit 33

    and examined as complainant – Atsiben Dhirenbhai at Exhibit

    32, Apurvabhai Bhulabhai Mehta at Exhibit 92, Dr. Jitendra

    Amrutlal Parmar at Exhibit 101, Anjaliben Apurvabhai at Exhibit

    104, Udamsinh Govindbhai Shah at Exhibit 110. The learned trial

    Court has observed that going through the evidence it nowhere

    mentioned that as to when the accused meted out harassment

    on the complainant or demanded dowry. A perusal of complaint

    at Exhibit 33 and her examination in chief at Exhibit 32 reveal

    contradiction and omission and even improved version of

    allegations in her deposition. It is needless to say that the within

    9 years of their marriage cruelty was meted out but as per the

    allegations starting point and specific instance is missing. No

    specific instance qua cruelty is mentioned and the same is

    missing and even contradiction, omission and improvement were

    found in the testimony of the complainant which goes to the root

    of the case and hence the learned trial Court has properly

    appreciated the evidence and discarded the evidence of the

    complainant. Moreover, when two possible views emerge from

    the evidence of the prosecution then view favouring the accused

    is required to be given weightage as presumption of innocence.

    Furthermore,    the   material     contradictions,   omissions       and

    improvements in the evidence particularly between testimony of


                              Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.RA/558/2020                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          the witness and earlier statement undermine the credibility of

          the evidence of the witness.


(7)       In addition the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and

          power under Section 401 of the Code is discretionary and the

          same 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 or illegality is found from the

          reasons assigned by both the Courts below. Moreover, the

          revisional jurisdiction itself does not provide reappreciation of

          evidence and considering the limited jurisdiction the Court

          cannot act as Appellate Court. Therefore, no case is made out to

          upset the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court and

          learned Appellate Court in light of scope of revision laid down by

          the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander,

          reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460.

(8)       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 06/04/2026 15:51:52




                                                       Page 5 of 5