Revisional interference is unwarranted absent perversity, illegality, or material error in the findings.

The applicants were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, under Sections 452/34, 323/34, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fines.

The conviction was affirmed in appeal.

The prosecution case was that, on 23 June 2008, the applicants entered the complainant’s house and assaulted her with a piece of wood and a stick, causing injuries.

In revision, the applicants challenged the appreciation of evidence, citing alleged omissions and contradictions, delay in lodging the complaint, and a land dispute; no one appeared for them at the hearing.

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction were affected by any perversity, illegality, infirmity, or error of law or fact warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Whether the applicants were required to surrender to serve the sentences imposed.

The convictions concerned Sections 452/34, 323/34, 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC.

In exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court considered whether the appellate findings disclosed perversity, illegality, infirmity, or an error of law or fact sufficient to warrant interference.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court reviewed the appellate judgment and the record and found that the evidence had been properly appreciated and that the appellate findings were reasoned and supported by the evidence.

It therefore found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings, notwithstanding the grounds raised in the revision.

As the applicants had already undergone the sentences, the Court held that they need not surrender.

Since the applicants had already undergone their sentences, they were not required to surrender before the concerned court.