Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Bhupsingh @ Bablu s/o Kisanlal Baghele, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tirora, in Regular Criminal Case No.28/1998 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial court sentenced him accordingly. The applicant appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Appeal No.16/2001, which confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present Criminal Revision Application No.129 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The facts leading to the case are that the applicant was charged with causing hurt by a dangerous weapon. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found the applicant guilty under Section 324 IPC, while acquitting two co-accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The appellate court upheld the conviction. In revision, the applicant's counsel argued that the courts below erred in convicting the applicant. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court were concurrent. The court observed that in revisional jurisdiction, it would not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Finding no such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Hurt by Dangerous Weapon - Section 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Concurrent Findings - The applicant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt by a dangerous weapon. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the evidence credible. The High Court held that in revisional jurisdiction, it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or illegal. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court, warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 324 IPC
- Hurt by dangerous weapon
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- No interference unless perverse or illegal
