Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings of fact are proven perverse.

The applicant, a nephew of the deceased, sought to set aside the acquittal of several accused persons by the Sessions Court, Panchmahals, dated 27.07.2007

The prosecution alleged that on 02.03.2002, during the Godhra-related riots, a mob of 500–1000 persons attacked Rameshara village, causing arson and killing Yaar Mohammed Haji Meharban Ali Makrani and Hamidabibi with sharp weapons

The accused were charged under Sections 395, 396, 397 (dacoity), 436, 435 (arson), 427, 120(B) (conspiracy), and 153(A) of the IPC

The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding material contradictions and a lack of identification evidence

On the date of the High Court hearing, the applicant was absent

The Court followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which allows the court to decide a matter on merits based on available records if the applicant is absent

It applied Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, 1973, concerning revisional jurisdiction

It relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) to establish that findings of fact should not be upset unless perverse

Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), which clarifies that revisional jurisdiction is intended to rectify patent legal defects or jurisdictional errors, not for the re-appreciation of evidence

The Court first determined that the persistent absence of the applicant indicated a lack of interest, justifying a decision based on the record

In reviewing the merits, the Court found that the Sessions Court had properly highlighted fatal flaws in the prosecution's case: material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, the recovery of only three weapons for ten alleged attackers, the failure of witnesses to identify the weapons or the accused at the scene, and the failure to prove dacoity or a pre-planned unlawful assembly

The Court reasoned that since the Trial Court’s findings were based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and not on arbitrary discretion or patent error, the revisional court cannot substitute its own view for that of the Trial Court

The High Court dismissed the revision applications and discharged the rule

The court concluded that there was no palpable error, perversity, or jurisdictional defect in the acquittal order dated 27.07.2007