IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 89/2004 Vinai Rai & Others ……… Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ………. Respondents None for the revisionists. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 21st October, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. None turned up on behalf of the revisionists even in the revised call, while Mr. P.S. Bohara, learned Brief Holder, is present for the State. It is also pertinent to mention that after filing/admission of this revision, none appeared on behalf of the revisionists on the last two consecutive dates i.e. on 3.4.2008 and 6.5.2008. In the circumstances, this Court has gone through the impugned judgments and orders and perused the papers on record. Also heard learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. This revision has been preferred against the concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar vide the judgment and order dated 3.2.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 695/98, State v. Vinai Rai & Ors., pertaining to Case Crime No. 911/96, police station Rudrapur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused revisionists, namely Vinai Rai, Smt. Ranjeeta, Smt. Smitra @ Budi under Section 324 & 323 IPC and sentenced each of the accused revisionists to one year’s rigorous imprisonment 2 for the offence of Section 324 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the convicts revisionists in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2003, which was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the convicts were sustained. Hence, this revision. 4. All the grounds of revision, as have been enumerates by the revisionists, are formal and stereotyped. It is the settled principle of law that in revision, further appreciation of evidence is not warranted by this Court until and unless grave and apparent error in appreciating the same is highlighted. Nowhere it has been stated as to what glaring errors and omissions has been committed by the courts below while appreciating the evidence or otherwise. No fatal contraction has been pointed out in the grounds of revision. It is also a settled position of law that there is no criminal case, which is free from even the minor discrepancies. These are bound to occur in a truthful case because the power of observation, perception and description of the sequence of the incident varies from witness to witness and depends upon innumerable factors. Word to word identical parrot like statements are only possible where the witnesses are tutored prior to their deposition in the Court. 5. As regards the lodging of the FIR, the same is also not delayed. Whatever delay has taken place, the same has been explained by showing the sufficient cause. 3 6. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. Revisionists are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Revisionists shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The period already spent by them behind the bars shall be adjusted after verifying the same from the records. 7. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Let the lower court record be o sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.10.2011 Prabodh