Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial court's findings.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

Criminal revision case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 31.10.2012 in Crl.A.No.157 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, allowing the criminal appeal in part confirming the conviction and sentence against the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’), vide judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Podili, in C.C.No.190 of 2008 setting aside conviction and sentence against the petitioner, A2 to A10 for the offences under Section 353 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and conviction and sentence against A2 to A10 for the offence under Section 323 r/w 149 of ‘the I.P.C’.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that no independent witnesses were examined; P.Ws.1 to 3 are the police constables who were interested witnesses; evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not trustworthy since they had not sustained any injuries; P.Ws.1 to 3 are inimical to the petitioner; and requested to allow the criminal revision case.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the offence occurred in the year 2008 and nearly 17 years have passed by. The petitioner was in jail for about 4 days. The petitioner’s right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision case as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed, and urged to sentence the petitioner to which he had already undergone.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt; though P.Ws.1 to 3 are police officials, their evidence was not tainted with any infirmities; the learned Appellate Court rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C’; there was no misreading of the evidence and material irregularity committed by the learned Appellate Court and urged to dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.157 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar , [ (2002) 6 SCC 650 ] wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under:

“12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one o