Full Judgment
Criminal Revision No.988/2009 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri P.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for respondent no.6-State.
Heard on admission.
This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1.4.2009 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.367/2008, whereby judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sirmor on 4/3/08 in Criminal Case No.869/06 was modified.
Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 stand convicted under Section 148 and 324/149 and respondent no.4 also stands convicted under Section 294 of the IPC and released on probation.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7/7/2000 at about 10.30 a.m., in pursuance of a land dispute, co-accused Gopika Prasad assaulted complainant Shailendra Singh with Danda causing injury on the finger of his left hand and Anjani gave a Tangi blow on his left palm.
FiRs.Information Report (for short “FIR”.) was registered at Police Station Baikunthpur on 6/6/2000 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
The trial Court acquitted Ramesh, Gopika Prasad and Anjani Kumar of the offence under Section 326/149 of the IPC, but convicted Krishan Kumar and Gokul Prasad respectively under Sections 324 and 294 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the judgment and record of the trial Court and appellate Court.
Looking to the evidence of Dr.
B.K.Garg (PW8).who had conducted the medical examination of complainant and Uma Shankar, no perversity or illegality is found in the impugned judgment of conviction under Section 324/149 of the IPC.
Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that no offence under Section 326 is made out.
Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, release of respondents on probation was justified.
It is well-settled that this Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence, unless the finding of fact is manifestly perveRs.or patently erroneous.
Thus, taking into consideration the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and other relevant facts & circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for.
The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)