TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in revision, could re-appreciate the evidence and overturn concurrent conviction findings of the trial court and the appellate court; (ii) whether the conviction for house trespass and hurt with common intention was sustainable and whether the accused deserved the benefit of probation.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in revision, could re-appreciate the evidence and overturn concurrent conviction findings of the trial court and the appellate court.
Analysis: Revisional power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is of a limited supervisory character and is not a second appellate jurisdiction. Read with Sections 401 and 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it permits interference to satisfy the court about correctness, legality, or propriety of the finding or order, but does not authorise a full re-assessment of oral and medical evidence merely to substitute a different view on facts. The concurrent courts below had accepted the prosecution version on the basis of prompt medical evidence, witness testimony, and corroborating circumstances, and there was no basis for the High Court to discard those findings by undertaking a minute re-evaluation of the entire record.
Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and its acquittal could not stand.
Issue (ii): Whether the conviction for house trespass and hurt with common intention was sustainable and whether the accused deserved the benefit of probation.
Analysis: Common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not require proof of a pre-arranged plan in every case; it may be inferred from the conduct of the participants and the manner in which the offence is committed. The evidence accepted by the trial court and the appellate court showed a joint entry into the complainant's house, assault inside the house, dragging of the complainant out, and repeated beating, which was sufficient to sustain liability with common intention. At the same time, the incident was old, arose out of a neighbourhood dispute, and the Court found it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation instead of directing actual imprisonment.
Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were restored, but the accused were directed to be released on probation on executing bonds for good behaviour.
Final Conclusion: The revisional acquittal was set aside, the concurrent findings of guilt were restored, and the punishment was modified by granting probation in place of immediate custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used as a second appeal to re-appreciate evidence and upset concurrent findings unless there is illegality, perversity, or impropriety, and common intention may be inferred from the concerted conduct of the participants during the commission of the offence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
