IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not empowered to embark upon in-depth re-examination of evidence to upset conviction recorded by Courts below.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 324 and 452/34-Accused-respondents entered into house of complainant, armed with stick, rod etc. and beat her-PW 2 when tried to intervene was given a blow on her nose and PW3, son of complainant was also eye witness-Conviction by trial Court and upheld by Sessions Court in appeal-High Court in revision set aside conviction by reappraisal of evidence-Appeal-High Court exceeded its revisional power by in-depth reexamination of evidence-Undue importance given to minor discrepancies-Some exaggeration would not falsify happening of alleged incident-Judgment of acquittal could not be sustained and conviction was liable to be restored. (Paras 13 to 25)
(ii) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Section 4-Conviction of accused u/s 324 and 452/34 IPC-Prayer for benefit of probation-Incident was 10 years old-Dispute was between neighbours over a trivial issue of cleaning of drainage-Parties were educated and distantly related-Fit case to allow benefit of probation. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-Leave granted in all the above cases.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The State and the complainant seek setting aside of the order dated 7.8.2003 of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of conviction of the trial court and the appellate court passed against the respondent-accused for alleged offence under Section 324 and 452 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for seven days.

3. The facts leading to prosecution of the accused and their conviction and eventual acquittal by the High Court are as follows:-

Complainant Smt. Satish Kaur Sahni and the convicted accused reside in different flats in the same building in Bombay.

4. It is alleged that on 3.5.1990 there was a quarrel between complainant and the accused on cleaning of drainage. On the same day, i.e., 3.5.1990 at about 8.30 in the night when the complainant was in her house with her son Manpreet Sahni (PW-3), all five accused are alleged to have entered the house of the complainant with stick, aluminum rod and tape-recorder cassettes. They started beating the complainant with fists and rods, tape-recorder and cassettes. Jyoti Ahuja (PW-2) who stays in the neighbour-hood tried to intervene but one of the accused (Bhupinder) gave a blow to her on the nose and she fell down. It is also alleged that the accused dragged the complainant out of her house and repeatedly beat her.

5. On the same night, at 9.30, a complaint was lodged in Khar Police Station which was registered as FIR. The complainant was referred for medical treatment to Bhabha Hospital where Dr. Kamble medically examined her. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani (PW-4) was examined to prove the medical report in which it is recorded that four simple injuries were found on the body of complainant including on her hands, forehead and chest.

6. The occupants of the building, where the incident had taken place, sent on 6.5.1990 a written complaint jointly signed by them to the Deputy Commissioner of Police requesting for a stern action against the accused for their high-handed acts of trespassing into the house of the complainant and brutally assaulting her. In all, five persons of the family of the accused were alleged to have participated in the incident which included parents, Kuldeep Anand, Bhagwant Kaur Anand and their three sons, Jagmohan Anand, Harminder Anand and Bhupinder Anand. The prosecution examined the complainant (PW-1), Jyoti Ahuja (PW-2), the neighbour who was present at the time of incident, son of the complainant Manpreet Sahni (PW-3) and Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani (PW-4) who proved the medical report. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5. The accused adjured the guilt and took the defence by examining DW-1 Abraham Samson Medhekar of their false involvement in the crime because of the past enmity between the families on a dispute over chit-fund scheme. The accused also attributed motive to the complaint of falsely implicating them with the alleged incident because they were able to purchase a property at a competitive price which the complainant wanted to purchase.

7. The Trial Court, being the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by its judgment 23.1.2001 acquitted the parents i.e. father accused No. 1 and mother, accused No. 5. On the basis of the evidence before him, the trial magistrate convicted the three accused 2, 3 and 4 and sentenced each one of them to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- with seven days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The magistrate came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of Manpreet Sahani is duly corroborated by prompt FIR and the medical report.

8. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused preferred criminal appeal in the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay. The Appeal Judge re-examined the evidence and by order dated 25.6.2002 upheld conviction and sentence of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 964

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not empowered to embark upon in-depth re-examination of evidence to upset conviction recorded by Courts below.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not empowered to embark upon in-depth re-examination of evidence to upset conviction recorded by Courts below.