Single judge dismissed criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for IPC offences. Court held that minor inconsistency in witness testimony did not render findings perverse under limited revisional jurisdiction.
Criminal revision application dismissed as having no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.581 of 2016
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kr. Panday (App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
4 15-02-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
The petitioner, upon having been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in Complaint Case No. 444(C) of 2000 (Trial No. 565 of 2011), allowed him benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and order, dated 11.08.2011, has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Buxar, by an order, dated 10.03.2016, passed in Criminal appeal No. 46 of 2011.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.581 of 2016 (4) dt.15-02-2017
2/3
The petitioner has questioned, in the present criminal revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the impugned orders, on the ground of apparent error in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
I have perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below. The scope in revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact is very limited and such finding can be interfered with only on the ground of perversity, which has led to miscarriage of justice.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has given a lot of emphasis on the part of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court where he has recorded that PW 4, in his deposition, has said that he was sitting on the tea-stall when the occurrence had taken place. Referring to the evidence of the witnesses, he has submitted that PW 4 was not at the tea-stall, as per his own deposition.
Mere mentioning of a fact by mistake in the judgment cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, alter the result. PW 4 has also claimed to be an eyewitness. Other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, in my opinion, cannot be said to be perverse, requiring interference by this Court in criminal revisional
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.581 of 2016 (4) dt.15-02-2017
3/3
jurisdiction.
This application has no merit and it is
accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by courts below, despite alleged minor inconsistency in witness deposition regarding location, are perverse and warrant revisional interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pankaj Kumar Gupta
The State of Bihar
Jitendra Kumar Gupta
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
