The court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence in criminal revisions unless there is a glaring defect in procedure or manifest error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.

By this revision application, the revision petitioners seek to challange to the judgment and order dated 23rd July 1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1995. By that judgment, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the J.M.F.C. Sangli of conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also the conviction under section 325 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. but modified the sentence from S.I. for 15 days to S.I. till rising of the court by enhancing the fine from Rs.1,5000/- to Rs.2,000/-.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the revision petitioners along with two other accused were charged of the offence punishable under section 324 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced by the J.M.F.C. Sangli, as above. On appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, as mentioned above. There was a dispute between the complainant and the applicants regarding the way which proceeds to the tomb of the deceased father of the complainant. The revision petitioners were obstructing the said way of the complainant to proceed to the tomb of his father. The complainant approached Tasgaon Police Station and with the help of police removed obstruction of the applicant. On account of this, the petitioners got angry and the petitioners, along with two other accused went to the house of the complainant at about 21.00 hours on 30th July 1992. The petitioners abused the complainant and his family members, and assaulted the complainant and his brothers with iron bar and sticks. Sister of the complainant also received injury on her palm when she tried to save the complainant. Immediately after the incident, the complainant rushed the police station at Tasgaon and lodged the First Information Report. The police sent the complainant for medical examination/treatment to the Primary Health Centre, Tasgaon and after receiving the medical certificates, the offence was registered under section 325, 337, 504, 506 read with secton 34 of the I.P.C. Spot panchanama was prepared, statements of five witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested on 24th August 1992 and were relased on bail, pending the trial. Charge was framed under section 325, 324 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and the petitioners with other two accused were tried.

3. The prosecution examined the complainant as well as his brothers as PW 1, 2 and 4, medical officers as PW 3 and 5. Panchas were examined PW 7 and 8; PW 9 was examined as an eye witness and investigating officer were examined as PW 10. Though panchas as well as eye witness turned hostile, the complainant and his brothers deposed about the incident. After carefully considering the evidence of complainant and his brothers, trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 & 4 but convicted the revision petitioners who were accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the trial Court. Aggrieved by the decision the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1995. After reappreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that evidence of the complainant and his brothers was cogent and believable. He accordingly confirmed the order of conviction, but modified the sentence as above.

4. It is settled priple of law that in criminal revisions, the court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence, which has been considered by the trial court and the appellate court and concurrently believed by the trial court and the appellate court. The revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances when there is a glaring defect in procedure or manifest error of point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice [Amar Chand Agarwala Vs. Shanti Bose & Anr., (AIR 1973 SC 799) and State of Orissa Vs. Nakula Sahu & Ors. (AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 663)] In the