The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to invoke the provision under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove a prior meeting of minds of all the accused persons and their participation in the offence in furtherance of such common intention.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2009, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of 15 (fifteen) days under Section 341 IPC, simple imprisonment of 3 (three) months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 1 (one) year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation under Section 324 IPC.

3. The prosecution case which may be relevant for disposal of this revision petition, in brief, was that on 30.06.2004 the injured, Amir Hussain was proceeding to his house after attending a meeting. When he reached near the house of the petitioner, Jalaluddin, the present petitioners along with some other mounted assault on him and thereby caused serious injuries. An FIR was lodged by the father of the injured, on the basis of which the police registered Dhing P.S. Case No. 101/2004 and on completion of the investigation laid charge sheet against the revision petitioners under Sections 341/ 294/ 323/ 324/ 34 IPC.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 323/ 341/324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioners under Sections 341/ 294/ 323/ 324/ 34 and awarded sentence, as has been indicated above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal thereby upheld and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition. The petitioner, Jalaluddin died during pendency of revision petition and as such at present only the petitioners, Md. Jamaluddin and Md. Abdul Khaleque are before this court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manas Sarania submits, that there was no materials on record to attract the provision of Section 34 IPC and as such the learned trial court as well as the appellate court fell in grave error by convicting all the petitioners for all the offences with the aid of Section 34 IPC inasmuch as the common intention of all the petitioners was totally absent. Further contention of Mr. Sarania is that the oral testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent with the previous statement and there has been a lot of improvement and embellishment in the oral testimony and the weapons of assault was also not seized, but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously recorded the conviction of the petitioners, though the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that this being a revision petition against the concurrent finding of facts by the two courts, there is no scope for re-appreciation of the evidence. The judgment and order has not suffered from any illegality or impropriety calling for any interference of this revisional court, submits learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

7. There is no quarrel with the broad proposition of law that unless the concurrent finding of facts suffers from perversity or blatant illegality causing miscarriage of justice, revisional court is not permitted to re-appreciate the evidence to substitute it’s own view for the view of the courts below on concurrent finding of facts. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale reported in AIR 1993 SC 1126 dealing with the scope of revisional jurisdiction observed that when the trial court and the appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence reached the concurrent finding that the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonab