Revisional jurisdiction excludes reappreciation of evidence absent manifest error of law or glaring perversity.

The applicant (original complainant) filed a complaint (II-C.R. No. 1 of 2018) at Laghnaj Police Station against respondent nos. 2 to 4 for offenses under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 427, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the G.P. Act

Following a trial in Criminal Case No. 4802 of 2018, the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana, acquitted the accused on 12.04.2022

The applicant challenged this acquittal in the Sessions Court, but the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, dismissed the appeal on 23.02.2023, upholding the trial court's order

The applicant subsequently filed the present revision application before the High Court to assail these concurrent findings of acquittal

1. Whether the lower courts committed a manifest error of law or reached perverse findings in acquitting the accused

2. Whether the High Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, can reappreciate the evidence produced during the trial to set aside an order of acquittal

The court primarily applied the principles governing revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which specify that the power is discretionary and limited to cases of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or miscarriages of justice

Regarding the requirements for offenses under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC, the court relied on Manik Taneja Anr. v. State of Karnataka Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 423 and Pravinbhai Becherbhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2007) 1 GLR 337

The court applied the standard set in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which prohibits a revisional court from acting as an appellate court by reappreciating evidence

The High Court found that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

The court highlighted several evidentiary failures: panch witnesses turned hostile; testimonies of the complainant and primary witnesses (Exhibits 11, 35, 38, 39, and 40) were inconsistent; and there was a total absence of medical evidence or records of treatment to substantiate the alleged injuries

Witnesses admitted that no threats were administered and that the police recorded statements despite the witnesses having no personal knowledge of the events

The court reasoned that since the findings of the lower courts were neither perverse nor illegal, and because revisional jurisdiction does not allow for the reappreciation of evidence, there were no grounds to interfere with the concurrent orders of acquittal

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused voluntarily caused injury or administered threats as defined under the IPC

It concluded that in the absence of any perversity or glaring defect in procedure, the revisional court cannot substitute its own view for that of the trial court

The record and proceedings were ordered to be returned to the concerned court