Revisional jurisdiction precludes re-appreciation of evidence unless findings of fact are demonstrably perverse.

The applicant (original complainant) lodged an FIR at Naroda Police Station against Respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 323, 294(B), and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act

Following a police investigation and chargesheet, the trial court examined five witnesses and documentary evidence, including recovery and scene-of-offence panchnamas

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on 27.11.2008, noting a 28-hour unexplained delay in filing the FIR, hostile witnesses, and testimony "improvements"

The Court also noted that the complaint appeared to be a counter-blast to a pending Section 307 IPC case filed by the accused against the complainant’s husband

The applicant moved the High Court in revision to quash this acquittal

1. Whether the trial court's order of acquittal was perverse or suffered from a jurisdictional error warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction

2. Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings of fact for those of the trial court in a revision application

The Court applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which govern the High Court's revisional powers to ensure the correctness, legality, and propriety of lower court findings

It relied on the principle from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which establishes that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be used to substitute findings of fact unless they are perverse or arbitrary

It further applied Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204, which holds that a revisional court does not dwell at length upon evidence to reverse findings unless there is a patent defect or error of jurisdiction

The Court analyzed the trial court's reasoning and found that the acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of the evidence.

It noted that the alleged incidents occurred on 14.11.2005 and 15.11.2005, yet the FIR was delayed by 28 hours without adequate explanation

Furthermore, the prosecution's case was weakened by eye-witnesses turning hostile and the complainant making material "improvements" during testimony

The High Court observed that the trial court correctly identified the potential for malice, given the pending Section 307 IPC litigation between the parties' families

Applying the Amit Kapoor and Malkeet Singh Gill precedents, the Court reasoned that findings of fact cannot be upset in revision unless they are totally perverse; here, the trial court’s conclusions were plausible and supported by the record

The Court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction is not a tool for the re-appreciation of evidence or the substitution of facts

Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, the rule was discharged, and any interim relief previously granted was vacated