Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Chandu @ Chandrakant Ramkrishna Pawar, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Amravati in Regular Criminal Case No.72/1989 for offences punishable under Sections 393 (attempt to commit robbery) and 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 for the first offence, and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200 for the second. The conviction was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No.23/1995 on 27.11.2003. The applicant then filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The prosecution case was that on 23.7.1988 at about 9.00-9.30 p.m., the complainant Balramsingh Raghuwanshi, a legal practitioner, was sitting in his office with all doors closed. The applicant called him from a window, claiming to be from Nagpur and wanting to meet the principal. When the complainant opened the verandah door, the applicant along with two others came forward, and the applicant took out a big knife and tried to assault him, threatening him not to make noise. The complainant resisted and sustained a cut wound on his right finger. The applicant tried to close the door, but the complainant pushed it open. The complainant's son came with an iron chair and helped push the accused out, raising an alarm. The complainant lodged a report, and after investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted the applicant, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court noted that the scope of revision is limited and that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse. The court found that the evidence of the complainant (PW1) and his son (PW2) was consistent and credible, and the injury on the complainant's finger was corroborated by the medical evidence. The court held that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the revision, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal - Held that concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence do not warrant interference (Para 3). B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Commit Robbery - Section 393 IPC - Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused attempted to commit robbery and caused or attempted to cause hurt - Held that the evidence of the complainant and his son, coupled with the injury report, established the offence (Paras 2-3). C) Indian Penal Code - House Trespass - Section 452 IPC - Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused committed house trespass after making preparation for causing hurt - Held that the accused entered the house with a knife and attempted to assault, satisfying the section (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 393 and 452 IPC are perverse or require interference in revision
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Revision under Section 397 CrPC
- limited scope
- concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered unless perverse
- conviction under Sections 393 and 452 IPC
