Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of acquittal absent palpable error or perversity.

The applicant, an 87-year-old disabled man, filed a criminal complaint against his son (Respondent No. 2) and daughter-in-law (Respondent No. 3) alleging that on March 9, 2008, they forcibly took keys to his ancestral property, trespassed, stole valuables (gold, silver, a vehicle, and documents), and issued death threats.

The Magistrate, after a Section 202 CrPC inquiry and trial, acquitted the respondents on June 30, 2018, finding the dispute to be civil in nature regarding ancestral property.

This acquittal was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on November 27, 2019.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the lower courts ignored evidence of his sole ownership and the dismissal of a previous civil suit filed by the son.

1. Whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 452 IPC) were established despite the pending civil nature of the property dispute.

2. Whether there was any patent illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of acquittal by the lower courts that warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC.

The court applied Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt), and 506(2) (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court relied on the principle from Mahasukhrai Kesavrai Joshi v. State of Gujarat (2007) regarding the acquittal in property disputes lacking cogent evidence of entrustment.

Regarding revisional powers, the court followed Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), which establish that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent defects or errors of jurisdiction and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the lower court's finding is totally perverse.

The Court observed that the applicant failed to produce documentary evidence, such as a sale deed or agreement to sell, to prove exclusive ownership over the property which originally stood in his mother's name.

The Court noted that the Dispute was essentially ancestral and civil, evidenced by Civil Suit No. 2001 of 2008 where a status quo order had been issued.

Since the complainant had converted religion and lived elsewhere while his first wife occupied the premises, the element of "criminal trespass" was not established.

The Court found no evidence of "entrustment" necessary for Section 406 IPC.

Applying the standard for revision, the Court held that the trial court and sessions court had reasonably appreciated the facts, and in the absence of any "palpable error" or "arbitrary exercise of discretion," the High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the lower courts.

The Court affirmed that the dispute was primarily civil and the criminal charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The interim relief was vacated.