Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is supervisory in nature and limited to correcting legal errors, illegality, or perversity in lower court judgments; it does not extend to the reappreciation of evidence as if in an appellate capacity.

JUDGMENT

These criminal revision petitions have been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos.178/2008 and 184/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc--II), Ernakulam, which arose out of C.C. No.1088/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam. The revision petitioners herein are the

1st, 3rd, and 4th accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 18.06.2002, at about

8:30 p.m., Accused Nos. 1 to 15 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the Forest Station, Valara, after arriving there in two jeeps bearing Registration Nos. KL-5/D-8006 and KL-7/S-439, armed with sticks. Further, it is alleged that the accused smashed the windowpanes and the solar lamp of the station and caused damage to the furniture and files kept in the office. They also damaged the crossbar of the check-post, thereby causing a loss of ₹5,000 to the Government exchequer. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP), 1984.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. Finally, the learned Magistrate found the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 15 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of IPC. For the offence punishable under section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Accused No.9 was found not guilty by the trial court and was acquitted. The case against the absconding accused was split up.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 15 preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.178/2008, 184/2008, and 173/2008 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II) Ernakulam, upon hearing the appeal, found accused nos. 7, 8, and 15 not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act and acquitted them. The conviction of accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act was confirmed. However, the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act was modified to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ₹1,000 each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo imprisonment for three months each. The sentences imposed for the remaining offences were confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have preferred the revision petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also pursued.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and recorded a conviction without properly appreciating the facts and evide