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

On 6 June 2008, Rajinder Kumar alleged that the petitioners restrained and assaulted him near Krishna Dhaba after a dispute concerning an enquiry about ash. Jagdish allegedly struck him on the face and head, causing a broken/dislocated tooth and other injuries. Raj Kumar and Mahender Singh also allegedly sustained injuries while intervening.

The FIR was registered at 12:35 a.m., approximately two hours after the incident. The injured persons were medically examined, and the police seized the alleged broken tooth, clothes, and an iron rod during investigation.

The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and released them on probation subject to payment of ₹40,000 as compensation to the victim.

The appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence-related order.

The accused thereafter filed the present criminal revision, contending that the prosecution evidence was unreliable, independent witnesses had turned hostile, and the injuries could have resulted from a fall.

1. Whether the concurrent findings convicting the petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC were perverse, illegal, or otherwise liable to interference in revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the testimony of the injured informant, despite discrepancies, hostile witnesses, and the medical officer’s admission that the injuries could have been caused by a fall, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

3. Whether the trial Court was legally competent to direct payment of ₹40,000 as compensation while releasing the petitioners on probation.

The Court applied the revisional standard under Section 397 CrPC, corresponding to Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which a revisional Court examines the correctness, legality, propriety, and regularity of the lower-court proceedings but does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence as a second appellate Court; interference is justified only where the findings are perverse, grossly erroneous, unreasonable, based on irrelevant material, or rendered after ignoring material evidence.

It relied on Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, and State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri on the limited scope of revision.

A prompt FIR materially reduces the possibility of concoction and may corroborate the informant’s testimony, as held in Krishnan v. State.

The credible testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries enhanced evidentiary value and cannot be discarded absent compelling reasons, as recognised in Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, and Rajan v. State of Haryana.

Medical evidence suggesting an alternative possibility is not conclusive where the ocular account is otherwise credible, under Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai and Krishnan.

Exaggeration or minor discrepancies do not destroy the core prosecution case; courts must separate truth from embellishment, as held in Achchar Singh v. State of H.P., Hari Chand v. State of Delhi, and Arvind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan.

Under Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, compensation may be directed while releasing an offender on probation; consideration of victim compensation is a judicial duty, as explained in State v. Sanjiv Bhalla and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice warranting revisional interference with the concurrent findings.

Rajinder Kumar was an injured witness whose account was supported by the prompt FIR, the medical evidence showing a forehead injury and a broken upper incisor, and the testimony and injuries of Raj Kumar, who also claimed to have been assaulted while intervening.

The doctor’s concession that the injuries could have resulted from a fall merely indicated an alternative possibility and did not displace the otherwise credible ocular evidence.

The discrepancy between the informant’s assertion that two teeth were broken and the medical finding of one affected tooth was treated as an exaggeration rather than a contradiction going to the root of the case.

The hostile or partially unsupportive witnesses did not demolish the prosecution case; their earlier statements to the police and the surrounding evidence were assessed in accordance with the principle that a witness’s unreliable portion may be discarded without rejecting the entire prosecution version.

The defence witness was rejected as inconsistent and unreliable, particularly because his account was inconsistent with the alleged strained relationship between the parties and the informant’s alleged visit to the accused’s dhaba.

Finally, the compensation order was upheld as expressly authorised by Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

It held that the convictions under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC were supported by reliable evidence and that no perversity or illegality was established in the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.

The direction requiring payment of ₹40,000 as compensation while releasing the petitioners on probation was also upheld as legally valid.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and the judgments and orders of the trial and appellate Courts were affirmed; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.