Concurrent findings of acquittal cannot be overturned in revisional jurisdiction absent patent perversity or legal error.

The applicant sought to challenge the judgment dated 15.09.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patan, which upheld the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by the JMFC, Radhanpur, in Criminal Case No. 322/1990

The respondents were originally charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 452, 427, and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

The trial court acquitted the accused due to a lack of reliable evidence, specifically the prosecution's failure to produce the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer as witnesses despite 29 years having elapsed at the time of the appeal

Neither the applicant nor their advocate appeared for the High Court proceedings

1. Whether the High Court can decide a revision application on merits in the absence of the applicant or their counsel.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of acquittal by the lower courts suffered from perversity or infirmity warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principles established in Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), allowing the court to decide a matter based on available records in the absence of the applicant

Regarding revisional jurisdiction, it relied on Section 397/401 of the CrPC and the principles in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), which restrict the Revisional Court from re-appreciating evidence or overturning concurrent findings of fact unless the decision is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a patent defect in law

Section 401(3) CrPC was also noted as a bar to converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in revision

The Court observed that the prosecution failed in its fundamental duty to procure key witnesses (Medical and Investigating Officers) to prove its case over a span of nearly three decades

It found that the Sessions Court had properly re-appreciated the evidence and correctly concluded that the Magistrate's acquittal was justified due to the lack of corroborative medical evidence

The High Court reasoned that since 36 years had passed since the FIR (1990), and as both lower courts provided reasoned findings without any palpable error of law, there was no ground to exercise discretionary revisional powers to substitute its own view for that of the trial courts

Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged

The Court confirmed that the scope of revision does not extend to re-evaluating facts unless the lower court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily