The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court should not reappraise evidence unless there is a glaring injustice or manifest error of law.

O R D E R

The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 236 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery and appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 411 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

2. The Appellate court confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioners under Sections 323 , 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC , and modified and reduced the sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 323 r/w 34 , Simple Imprisonment for two months each under Section 324 r/w 34 and Simple Imprisonment for three months each under Section 326 r/w 34 and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months each.

3. The prosecution case is that on

07.08.2010 at 10.30 p.m., the accused persons attacked PWs 1 and 2 with soda bottles causing them serious injuries including frontal bone and nasal bone fracture.

4. Heard Sri. Devika Rathanan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the trial court and the Appellate court ought to have found that the identification of the accused persons before the Court in the absence of a test identification parade is not at all reliable and that the non examination of CW3, a material witness has caused prejudice to the accused persons and there was no opportunity for the defense to cross examine PW3 Doctor.

6. PWs 1 and 2 are the injured eye witnesses and their evidence regarding the occurrence is corroborated by the evidence of PW4, an occurrence witness and the evidence of PW3 doctor and Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. Even though, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that there was no opportunity to cross examine PW3, a perusal of the deposition of PW3 shows that PW3 Doctor was seriously cross examined by the defense. Both the injured eye witnesses identified the accused persons before the Court and further, the evidence of PW4 clearly shows that PWs 1 and 2 and the accused persons are previously known to him and he witnessed the occurrence. The evidence of PW4 regarding the occurrence tallies with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, and further their evidence is also supported by the evidence of PW3 Doctor and Exts. P2 and P3 wound certificates and therefore, in the absence of any material contradiction, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 injured eye witnesses cannot be doubted.

7. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 inter SCC 165], the Honourable Supreme Court 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