Conviction based on extra judicial confession is valid if corroborated by reliable evidence; revisional jurisdiction does not alter concurrent factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

Pranjal Das, J.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilt against the petitioner under Section 419 IPC, the revision petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition under the provisions of 397 and 407 Cr.P.C. assailing these two judgments:-

i) Judgment & order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned SDJM(S), Bongaigaon in GR Case No.103/2004; &

ii) Judgment & order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Bongaigaon in Crl.A. No.18(2)/2012.

3. The case arose out of an incident occurred on 03.03.2004 during HSLC examination in the school, in which, the informant was working and the petitioner was alleged to have impersonated for the examination on behalf of one Newton Narzary having Roll No. B04-064 No.3125 and that he was caught red handed by so impersonating.

4. Upon police being informed, Dhaligaon P.S. Case No.14/2004 was registered under Section 419 /420 IPC and after investigation police submitted a charge-sheet under the same consequence.

5. Interestingly, the police sent the present revision petitioner as well as Newton Narzary to face trial and upon being charged by the learned SDJM(S), Bongaigaon, they faced trial, during which, prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the I/O.

6. After completion of trial, the trial Court did not find Newton Narzary guilty, but found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 419 IPC and he was convicted there under and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 (six) months for the conviction. The said judgment and sentence was taken up in an appeal and the learned Appellate Court was also pleased to affirm the same, as a result of which, the convict appellant as petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. The TCR in original was procured.

7. Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concurrent findings of the Court with regard to conviction is wrong in facts and law. It is contended that the conviction is solely based upon extra judicial confession. The alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before some persons and that there were infirmities in the said testimony, which in any case is the evidence of a very weak nature.

8. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the sample handwriting and the alleged seized answer script were sent to the FSL after considerable lapse of time, thereby casting doubts on its veracity.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, Ram Singh –vs- State of U.P. /b> reported in (2024) 4 SCC 208 and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi –vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2023) 9 SCC 164

10. I have heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who was also taken the Court through the discussion of the depositions by the learned trial Court and the appellate Court, especially the deposition of PW 3, 4 and 6.

11. Before proceeding, further it may be noted that a criminal revision against conviction is not a criminal second appeal in disguise. The revisional jurisdiction is exercised only to check whether the impugned judgments suffered from any jurisdictional errors; material irregularity; perversity; complete mis-appreciation of evidence causing miscarriage of justice and such related facts. The revisional Court in exercise of such jurisdiction has a limited mandate with regard to appreciation of evidence. Moreover, as far as concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and First Appeal Court are concerned- the threshold of interference is e