Criminal Revision No.1100 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1100 OF 2005 Roshan and others ... Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana ... Respondents Decided on : November 17, 2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Guupta, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 23.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 21/24.5.2004 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka, convicting Roshan, Israil and Asloop (accused-petitioners) along with Sher Mohd. Ishaq, Shadi and Nazir (accused, acquitted in appeal) convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC'); and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, each under Section 325 IPC. However, in appeal, the sentence under Section 325 IPC was reduced to six months. The prosecution case is that accused Israil, Asloop and Najir Criminal Revision No.1100 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] had sown crop in the land of Panchayat unauthorisedly and the complainant – injured Alam Khan destroyed that crop at the instance of the Panchayat. However, on this account, the accused nursed grudge against him. On 2.11.1995, at about 8.00 AM, when the complainant along with Sardar was sitting at Bus Stand of the village, the accused came there and started abusing him, they gave lathi blows on his head, right hand and back. On raising alarm, Hassan – injured tried to intervene, but he was also given a lathi blow on his back. Islam and Suleman, who were sitting on the shops saved the complainant and Hassan, and shifted them to Hospital. On the aforesaid allegations, the case was registered and investigated. On submission of the charge-sheet, all the seven accused were charged under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined Dr.D.P)arashar (PW1), Alam Khan – complainant (PW2), Hassan – injured (PW3), Suleman (PW4), Mohan Lal Head Constable (PW5) and Dr.Akhlaq Ahmad (PW6). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and in defence examined Raju (PW1) and Rafiq (DW2). Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction of all of them. However, their appeal qua Sher Mohd. Ishaq, Shadi and Nazir was accepted, while qua Roshan, Israil and Asloop i.e, the petitioners, it was dismissed. Criminal Revision No.1100 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] Arguments heard. Records perused. On conjoint reading of the depositions of Alam Khan – complainant (PW2), Hassan - injured witness (PW3) and Hassan – eye-witness (PW4), it is amply established that on 2.11.1995, the accused-petitioners, while armed with lathis, had caused the injuries to the complainant and Hassan, on account of their having nursed a grudge against the complainant as he had destroyed their crop standing in the Panchayat Land at the instance of the Panchayat. Their evidence further finds corroboration with the medical evidence led in the shape of the testimonies of Dr.D.Parashar (PW1) and Dr.Akhlaq Ahmad (PW6). Since both the courts below have elaborately discussed and appreciated the evidence led by both the parties, therefore, the same is not required to be gone into. As such, there would be no reservation to hold that the conviction of the petitioners is based on correct appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very restricted in nature. In case State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. Once again, in 1999, in case State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction Criminal Revision No.1100 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Similar observations were made in case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the order of the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded by the lower court. Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of the petitioners concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence to six months, which, in my view, does not require further modification. Petition dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for compliance. The amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the concerned quarters. The 17th day of November, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE