Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a family dispute between two brothers, Chandrakanth and Neelkant, and their respective family members. The complainant, Smt. Iramma (wife of Neelkant), alleged that on 15-05-2007, the accused (Chandrakanth, Sheku Bai, and others) assaulted her and her family members with sticks and stones, causing injuries. A criminal case was registered under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court (Civil Judge & JMFC, Aurad-B) acquitted the accused on 20-03-2015 in C.C.No.527/2007. The State and the complainant appealed, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015, reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused on 27-09-2016. The accused filed Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 challenging the conviction, while the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 seeking enhancement of sentence. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., examined the records and found that the appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence, including the testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence. The court held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity or illegality. Since the findings of the appellate court were concurrent and based on credible evidence, the revision petitions were dismissed. The court also noted that the sentence imposed (simple imprisonment for one year and fine) was not excessive. The judgment was delivered on 10-03-2022 by Justice K. Somashekar.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and can interfere only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The court declined to re-appreciate evidence where the appellate court had already assessed the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. (Paras 10-12) B) Indian Penal Code - Assault and Criminal Intimidation - Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction - The appellate court had convicted the accused for voluntarily causing hurt, hurt by dangerous weapons, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation. The revisional court found no ground to interfere with the conviction as the evidence of injured witnesses was consistent and corroborated. (Paras 13-15) C) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Injured Witnesses - Testimony of injured witnesses is given great weight and can be relied upon without corroboration if it is natural and consistent. The court upheld the conviction based on the testimony of the injured complainant and other eyewitnesses. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the appellate court convicting the accused under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27-09-2016 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- concurrent findings of fact not ordinarily interfered with
- appreciation of evidence in criminal appeals
- conviction under Sections 323
- 324
- 504
- 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
