Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and limited; it cannot reappraise evidence unless clear miscarriage of justice is shown.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section

326 IPC by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.6.2014, at about 2.30 p.m., the accused, because of previous enmity, beat PW1 with a stick on his right shoulder causing grievous hurt and fracture of right clavicle.

3. Heard Smt.Lira A.B., the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on record and Sri. Alex M.

Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and that as per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence is the road; but the evidence of PW1 would show that the incident occurred inside his grocery shop.

5. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 shows that there occurred a verbal altercation between the witness and the accused, while he was opening his shop and when he came out of the shop, the accused beat him with a stick on his right shoulder. PW2 is an occurrence witness who supported the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence is supported by the medical evidence of PWs 5 and 7 doctors and in the absence of any material contradiction, the evidence of PW1, injured eye witness, cannot be doubted.

6. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [ (2018) 8 SCC 165 ], the Honourable Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:

“12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397 /401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [ State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)

“5. … 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. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. …”

13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [ Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke , (2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] . This Court held tha