IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness statements undermine conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM in short) (M), Pathsala in PRC Case No. 17/2008 convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 1 (one) month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 1 (one) month under Section 323 IPC and to undergo RI for 15 (fifteen) days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 (fifteen) days under Section 447 IPC. The further challenge is against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 17(A)/2008 whereby the conviction and sentence passed by the learned SDJM (M), Pathsala on 25.08.2008 was upheld.

2. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the judgments are vitiated by perversity inasmuch as the learned Courts below had failed to consider that the defence had been able to establish through its cross-examination that there are material contradiction in the statements of the victims as well as eye-witnesses and also of the Investigating Officer resulting in uncontroverted conclusion that the witnesses were not at all trustworthy and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fit case to exercise the power of this Court under Sections 397/401/482 CrPC though both the learned Courts below had concurrently held the petitioner guilty.

3. Par contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the both the Courts below had concurrently found the petitioner guilty on the basis of the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, such judgments cannot be said to have patent defect or any jurisdictional error. Therefore, this Court may not entertain the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Law is well settled that the object of revisional power of this Court under Sections 397/401 CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or of law. Such power can be exercised where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is non-compliance of provisions of law, the finding recorded is either based on no evidence or the material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. It is equally well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of a High Court should not be exercised in a routine manner.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Babu Vs State reported in 2015 (8) SCC 774 held that normally revisional jurisdiction should be exercised in a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it should be exercised in the class or the classes of cases resulting in a perverse finding. The Hon’ble Apex Court went to say that the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, now let this Court consider the present case, more particularly in the backdrop of the arguments that both the decisions of the learned Courts below are vitiated by perversity.

7. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of an FIR. A bare reading of the FIR discloses as following:-

a) On the date of the incident, i.e., on 08.01.2008 at around 03:00 pm, when the informant/victim, namely, Nirupama Medhi was standing at her courtyard, the accused Dipak Medhi along with one Monoranjan Medhi and Himani Medhi entered into her courtyard and hit her with a cricket bat on her head which was held by Dipak Medhi.

b) It is further alleged that as a result of such hit, the informant fell down on the ground and t