The revisional jurisdiction is distinct from appellate power; it allows intervention only when there's a gross miscarriage of justice, confirming convictions for crimes like trespass and assault.

ORDER :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.533/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Sulthanbathery. In this revision petition they challenged the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.533/2010 and Crl.A No.30/2013 of Sessions Court, Kalpetta, by which they were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that by alleging that PWs 1 and 2 killed a cow by poisoning, on 31.8.2010 at 12.30 pm, accused along with 30 others trespassed into the residential premises of PWs 1; A1 to A6 voluntarily caused hurt to PWs 1 and 2 with sticks and caused injuries to them. Accused also committed mischief by dismantling window pane of the house of PW1 and caused damage to the electrical and plumbing materials. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 448 , 427 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner as Crl.A No.30/2013 was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Kalpetta by confirming the conviction and sentence.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have filed this revision petition contending that there are material discrepancies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses and therefore the learned Magistrate and the learned Session judge went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused; that the trial court and the appellate court failed to take note of the fact that even as per the prosecution case, there were more than 30 persons in the group of assailants and therefore there was no proper identification of the assailants; that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence against the accused are liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the concurrent finding of guilt rendered by the trial court and the appellate court and contended that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused.

6. Now let us see whether there are any reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused.

7. It is well settled that the revisional power of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of appellate court and therefore ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court, which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Unless the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the appellate court is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order merely because another view is possible.

8. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [ (2015) 3 SCC 123 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“14........Unless the order passed by the Magistr