Concurrent findings of guilt warrant no revisional interference absent perversity or legal error.

The complainant alleged that on 21 April 2013, the applicant entered her home, pushed her to the ground and caught hold of her; she raised an alarm, and her husband and son arrived, after which the applicant fled.

A charge-sheet followed. The Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the applicant under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 under each section, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The applicant challenged those concurrent findings in revision, arguing, among other things, that the complainant’s testimony was unreliable and the prosecution had not proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt

The High Court noted that he had already served the sentence

1. Whether the concurrent findings of guilt under Sections 451 and 354 IPC were unsupported by the evidence or otherwise warranted interference in revision

2. Whether the applicant was required to surrender after dismissal of the revision, given that he had already served the sentence

The conviction was under Section 451 IPC, concerning house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, and Section 354 IPC, concerning assault or criminal force against a woman with the requisite intent or knowledge regarding the outrage of her modesty.

In considering the revision, the Court stated that interference with concurrent findings was not warranted absent a demonstrated perversity, illegality, infirmity or error of law or fact

The judgment cites no precedent or further elaboration of the revisional standard

The applicant challenged the complainant’s credibility, relied on alleged contradictions and prior enmity, and pointed to a prosecution witness who had turned hostile. The High Court did not separately analyse those evidentiary points or set out the elements of each offence; it concluded, after reviewing the trial and appellate judgments and the record, that the evidence had been properly appreciated and that the concurrent findings rested on cogent and adequate reasons. It therefore found no ground for revisional interference

Since the applicant had already undergone the entire sentence, the Court held that he need not surrender.

As the applicant had already served the sentences, it directed that he was not required to surrender.