Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice; injured witness testimony highly reliable.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment 13.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahul Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It was asserted that Jitender Thakur (PW-1) was running a shop in the name and style of Chandigarh Tailor at Sheglu Bazar. He was sewing the clothes on 21.05.2007 in his shop. Raj Kumar @ Raju (accused) entered his shop at about 4:00 p.m. The accused was armed with a ‘Darat’. He threatened to kill the informant. Sangat Ram (PW-2) came to the spot and tried to pacify the accused; however, the accused inflicted a blow with a Darat to Sangat Ram. Sangat Ram (PW-2) averted the blow with his hands. The accused inflicted a Darat blow upon the informant. The informant also averted the blow with his left hand. The informant shouted for help. Kishan Chand, Ati Bahadur, Dhana Devi (PW-7) and Maya Devi (PW-3) reached the spot. The accused damaged the machines and the clothes lying in the informant’s shop. The informant sustained a loss of RS. 40,000/-. The matter was reported to the police. An entry No. 22 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He recorded the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of the informant and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-5/A) was registered. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/A). He seized the damaged articles vide memo (Ext.PW-7/A). The accused produced a ‘Darat’ (Ext.P-3), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-3/A). Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) medically examined Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and found that he had sustained grievous and simple injuries, which could have been caused by means of a Darat. He issued his MLC (Ext.PW-6/A).Dr Suresh Thakur also examined Sangat Ram (PW-2) and found that he had sustained simple and grievous injuries which could have been caused within 50 to 60 minutes by a sharp and heavy weapon like a Darat. He issued his MLC (Ext.PW6/B). The injured Sangat Ram (PW-2) and Jitender Thakur (PW-1) produced their blood-stained shirts, which were sealed in separate parcels. Seal impressions (Ext.PW-8/C and Ext.PW8/D) were taken on separate pieces of cloth. The parcels were seized vide memos (Ext.PW-1/B and Ext. PW-2/A). Photographs of the spot (Ext.P1 to P4) whose negatives are Ext. P5 to Ext. P8) were taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned T