Honble YAMIN, J.–Both these revision petitions have been heard together and will be decided together by this order as both the accused petitioners jointly faced trial and were convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur by his judgment dated 20.3.1991 and each one of them was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both of them preferred joint appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur on 31.8.1991 who reduced the sentence of four years to three years under Section 394 IPC but maintained the sentence of fine.

(2). I have heard the learned counsel for both the petitioners in two different revisions as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.

(3). Relevant facts are that at about 11.00 P.M. on 27.3.1983 Smt. Dhapi was passing through the `B Road in Sardarpura, Jodhpur in order to go to her house. When she reached infront of Shiv Mandir near Gandi Maidan two persons came on a cycle from her back side. Both of them caught hold of her and fell down. She was wearing a `borala (golden ornament) on her head. They tried to snatch it. While snatching the ornament one of them put chilly powder in her eyes. Smt. Dhapi made hue and cry but the `borala which was tied on her head was snatched. Both the them tried to run away but in the meantime two constables and Bal Kishan Gupta came and chased the petitioners. They were caught. Smt. Dhapi went to police station alongwith her son-in-law and reported the matter where first information report was registered. Kedar and Sitaram constables brought both the petitioners stating that they had run away after snatching the `borala of Smt. Dhapi. Tara Singh petitioner was arrested vide Ex. P/4 while petitioner Satyanarain was arrested vide Ex.P/5. When search was taken `borala was recovered from the possession of Tara Singh and chilly powder was recovered from accused petitioner Satyanarain. During investigation Smt. Dhapi was medically examined. She was having some injuries as detailed in Ex.P./9. After investigation challan was submitted before Chief Judicial Magistrate who framed charges under Sections 394/34 IPC against both the accused petitioners who denied them and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. Then the petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They did not produce any evidence in defence. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above. On appeal their conviction was maintained but sentence of jail was reduced.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioners wanted me to go through the entire evidence as their argument was that the petitioners are not proved to have committed the offence under which they have been convicted. Their attention was drawn to State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., (1), in which it was observed that in its revisional jurisdiction the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the 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.

(5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document