Revisional courts cannot reappreciate concurrent factual findings absent illegality or miscarriage of justice.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute concerning land and access, the petitioners assaulted PW1 with a wooden object, caused injuries, abused him and threatened him; PW2, PW1’s wife, witnessed the incident.

The trial court convicted the petitioners, including under Section 326 IPC. On appeal, the Sessions Court altered the conviction under Section 326 to Section 324 IPC, finding insufficient evidence to establish the graver offence, but otherwise upheld the conviction.

The petitioners sought revision, arguing, among other things, that the discrepancy between the alleged wooden stick and the seized wooden board undermined the prosecution case, and that the courts had not adequately considered the civil dispute and alleged false implication.

Whether the courts below erred in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the medical evidence, such that the conviction and sentence suffered from illegality or incorrectness.

Whether the circumstances disclosed a basis for the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

The petition was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The offences considered in the judgment arose under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court stated that revisional review is limited: it does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of evidence, and interference is warranted where the courts below have failed properly to consider factual or legal matters in a way that affects the legality or correctness of the decision or results in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court also observed that minor discrepancies are to be expected in criminal cases and that mathematical precision is not required.

The Court found that the evidence of the injured witness, PW1, was supported by PW2’s eyewitness account and the medical evidence, including the wound certificate and the doctor’s testimony concerning PW1’s fracture.

It held that the difference between a wooden board and a wooden stick did not, in the circumstances, justify a different conclusion in revision, and that the courts below had properly assessed the evidence.

The appellate court had already reassessed the evidence and reduced the conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 IPC; the High Court found no further error in the findings or sentence warranting revision.

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed; the appellate court’s modification of the Section 326 IPC conviction to Section 324 IPC, and the remaining findings and sentences, were left undisturbed.