1 REVN 156.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2011 Balu Raghunath Patil. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Vinay A. Rathi a/w. Ms. Anjali Patil for the Applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The Revision Applicant Balu is in custody. The matter is argued finally at admission stage. The Writ Petitioner questions conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.716 of 2007 by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai dated 18.10.2008, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. For five years and to pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months. Said conviction was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.550 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mumbai. 2 REVN 156.11.sxw 2. The Revision questioned propriety of the order of conviction, pointing it to be contrary to the evidence adduced, non-application of mind and the learned Additional Sessions Judge blindly recorded the conviction in S.C.No.716 of 2007 as and by way of a copy paste judgment. 3. Before adverting to the canvassed points, the scope of Revision in terms of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Calls for certain parameters. The law is clearly indicated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagannath Chaudhary V/s. Ramayan Singh reported in (2002) SCC (Cri.) 1181, paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof is as under :- “9. Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors.: ). The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the application would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the 3 REVN 156.11.sxw revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as a popularly informed has to be judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla : Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.: ) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 4. Inspite of this legal position, the learned Counsel for the Revision Applicant enjoyed luxury of reading evidence of injured Sangeeta, her daughter, the eye-witness Manali, 4 REVN 156.11.sxw Medical Officer (PW-8 and PW-10) and also husband of PW-3. The learned Counsel criticized to the typographical errors in the Judgment as to dates of events appearing in the medical certificate (Exhibits 29 and 34), as to whether the date of incident was 26.5.2007 or it could be 25.6.2006 or it could be 18.7.2006. 5. Facts material for the present revision are as under :- The injured with her husband and mother-in-law occupied the disputed room. The parties are litigating in the civil litigation. This Court was even taken to such civil litigation, however, it need not be further dealt upon. Injured was in the room nearby a cupboard is in existence, keys of which are either with the Revision Applicant, his wife and mother of the Revision Applicant (mother-in-law of Sangeeta). On the fateful day, when the injured was sitting, the Revision Applicant entered in the room. He asked the injured to get aside, there was verbal clash between them. Revision Applicant opened the door of the cupboard, removed koyta (sickle) and feeling annoyed of altercation between him and the injured Sangeeta, the Revision Applicant allegedly assaulted her aiming at her neck region. She suffered injury at her neck region and even at back side and her chin. Blood was oozing from injuries which had explored on the apparels wore by the Revision Applicant. The blood was also found on the Koyta (sickle article). Injured went to hospital. She was examined by PW-8 and PW-10. The medical papers of such 5 REVN 156.11.sxw examination are placed on record by PW-8 Dr. Pramod Ramchandra Shiralkar at Exhibit 28 and PW-10 Dr. Rajani Jagtap had issued certificate at Exhibit 29 in the context of the certificate at Exhibit 34. 6. On assessing evidence of the witnesses and the C.A. report, the Court recorded above referred conviction and same is assailed. 7. The scope of revision as indicated above is limited. It is expected, the Revision Applicant to point out there is failure of justice in attending the matter, or that the learned Judge recorded the conviction contrary the evidence adduced. 8. Before the learned Judge, apart from the evidence of eye-witness, there was evidence of injured eye-witness PW-3 Sangeeta. There was evidence of her daughter PW-7 Manali supported by Medical Officer. Even if the lift man PW-4 Bahadur Singh Mahum Singh has turned hostile, however, that by itself will not change colour and complexion of the matter. 9. The following discrepancies in evidence is not to be read as a fetal blow to the prosecution :- “ It is not correct to say accused was present when incident took place. It is not correct to say, I myself inflicted the injury on my person with the knife because of the quarrel with my husband. It is not correct to say, accused was attending his duty from morning till night.” 6 REVN 156.11.sxw 10. One should not be oblivious to other part of evidence. In the examination in chief in unequivocal terms, the injured informs about how the accused came to the room. He asked her to get aside, abused her and on altercation inflicted her by taking the sickle from cupboard. Reading the evidence of injured PW-3, I find, it cannot be said to be the evidence coupled with exaggeration or embellishment contrary to evidence or facts. 11. Again, this aspect is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Brahm Swaroop V/s. State of U.P. reported in 6 SCC 288 at paragraph 32 observed as under :- “32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety, “irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.” Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and shifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court 7 REVN 156.11.sxw comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses.” 12. In the fact of the case again I find the assessment of evidence as carried by both the Courts does not call for any interference nor it suggest any infirmity or illegality or non- application of mind. Minor typographical error in the recording of evidence simply needs to be ignored as they do not go to the root of the matter. It cannot be said that the injured had wield a feeling of false prosecution to ensure that the revision applicant is stripped of his rights in the property. PW-7 Manali has even accepted that the Revision Applicant was visiting the premises intermittently and he had one key of the cupboard. 13. The learned Counsel during the course of submission has stated that the Revision Applicant had no intention to cause the injury. One of the injury was grievous and another was simple. Compensation can be enhanced and the sentence to be reduced. However, looking to the manner in which he assaulted and tenor of Section 307 of I.P.C., I do not wish to 8 REVN 156.11.sxw advert to acceptance of this submission, to call for import of Probation of Offenders Act. 14. I do not see any error in both the orders. The Revision lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)