IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5268 of 2024 IQBAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Kshitij Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.)has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora District Ratlam in Cr.A.No.196/2022, wherein the application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in this case earlier a revision petition was filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court for aggravating the charges. Applicant preferred an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court, however the same was rejected and the charges under Signature Not Verified Section 294, 323/34, 326/34, 506-II of IPC, were maintained as such. As per prosecution case the respondent has caused injury by sword and iron rod (sariya) on the head of the injured as they were having intention to cause death of injured Iqbal. There were 13 injuries, although it was caused by single blow. In these circumstances, counsel prayed for setting aside the order of trial Court and enhance the charge under 307 of IPC, 1860.

3. Learned Govt. Advocate supported the complainant's case and submitted that since the injury was caused on the vital part of the injured, hence offence under Section 307 of IPC, should be imposed against the respondent.

4. In view of the rival submissions I have gone through the record.

5. It is undisputedly revealed that a single blow has been caused by the respondent on the vital part of the head by sword. Although the injuries were grievous in nature, yet the intention to cause death to the injured was prima facie not established. It is also pertinent to mention that prosecution has filed charge sheet for offence under Section 294, 323/34 326/34 506-II of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC, 1860.

6. So far as the revisional power of this Court is concerned, it is well settled legal position that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is not as that of an appellate Court, which is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding entered by the trial Court. Actually the jurisdiction of revisional Court has a limited scope. The revisional Court can interfere with the impugned order of Courts below only when it is unjust and unfair. In case where the order of learned trial as well as appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Signature Not Verified Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner.

7. On this aspect, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sharad Dubey & Ors. vs. Mahesh Gupta & Ors. 2005 (2) MPJR 71, is worth to refer here:-

"The jurisdiction of revisional Court is limited. The revisional Court can interfere with the impugned order of subordinate Court only when it is unjust and unfair. The examination of the record is limited in scope. In a case where the order of inferior court does not suffer from any infirmity merely because of equitable considerations of revisional Court is not competent to call upon the inferior Court to reconsider the matter."

8. In terms of the revisional jurisdiction in examining the orders passed by trial Court, the following excerpt of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark judgement of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra reported as (2012) 9 SCC 460 is also propitious to reproduce here under:-

“12.