ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.PC. has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.9.2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Criminal Appeal No.169/2019 (Bablu @ Lal Panda v. State of MP), whereby judgment dated 25.6.2019, passed by the learned JMFC in Case No.1373/2014 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 327 and 324 of IPC and awarding him sentence of 1-1 year RI in each offence and fine of Rs.500/- and Rs. 300/- respectively with default stipulation has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that on 9.6.2014, complainant Golu @ Avinash lodged a report against the petitioner Bablu @ Lal Panda to the effect that on 9.6.2014 at about 8:15 pm, he was going to his home, then, petitioner met him and abused him filthily and asked money for liquor. On refusal by complainant, he caught hold his neck and attacked him with lathi over his head. Upon hearing the noise, complainant’s brother Pawan came there, then, petitioner Bablu @ Lal Panda attacked his brother on the neck with knife. Bablu @ Lal Panda also threatened him to kill. Gore Lal and Ajay intervened. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under sections 327, 324, 323, 294 and 506 of IPC.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under section 294, 327, 324 and 506-II of IPC. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed in Case No. 1373/2014 (State of MP v. Bablu @ Lal Panda), after evaluation of evidence, found petitioner to have committed offence under section 327 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1-1 year RI in each offence and fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs 300/- respectively with default stipulations. Against the above judgment, petitioner filed an appeal and learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 16.9.2019 passed in Cr.A. No. 169/2019, dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment with respect to conviction and sentence as above. Against this, petitioner has preferred present revision.

4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:-

5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon’ble apex Court in State v. R. Soundirarasu, AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).

6. In Duli Chand (supra), Hon’ble apex Court has held as under:-

“5………The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate Courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. …..”

7. In R. Soundirarasu (supra),Hon’ble apex court has held as under:-

“75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:-

"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate Courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first informati