The Sikkim High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that appellate findings on evidence cannot be disturbed absent a glaring miscarriage of justice. This judgment clarifies the threshold for judicial intervention in criminal convictions upheld by both trial and appellate courts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionists, Bidhan Trikhatri and Bikash Trikhatri, were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok, for offences under Section 380 (theft in dwelling house) and Section 454 (lurking house trespass with intent to commit theft) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, upheld the conviction and further held them liable under Section 34 (common intention). The revisionists now challenge this concurrent finding before the High Court under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The alleged offence occurred on 24.11.2021 at Nam Nang, Gangtok, involving theft of cash, gold jewellery, and valuable articles from a dwelling.
- On 24.11.2021, property seizure memo (Exhibit-11) was prepared at the place of occurrence under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
- On 26.11.2021, a second seizure (Exhibit-12) was made from the room of Revisionist No.1 at Bagdogra, also under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
- Police Inspector Tensung Bhutia (P.W.2) lifted three chance fingerprints (Exhibits X, Y, Z) from a Godrej almirah at the scene.
- Ten-digit specimen fingerprints of the revisionists (Exhibits A and B) were collected during custody and submitted for comparison.
- The fingerprint expert (P.W.2) submitted his opinion (Exhibit-8) on 23.12.2021, confirming match between chance and specimen prints.
- The Investigating Officer submitted a requisition (Exhibit-9) to the Superintendent of Police for comparison.
- No independent witnesses from Bagdogra were present during the second seizure.
- The revisionists were not cross-examined on the authenticity of their specimen fingerprints.
Procedural History
- 24.11.2021: Occurrence of theft and initial seizure at Nam Nang.
- 26.11.2021: Second seizure at Bagdogra.
- 23.12.2021: Fingerprint expert submits opinion (Exhibit-8).
- 23.08.2022: Chief Judicial Magistrate convicts revisionists under Sections 380 and 454 IPC.
- 12.12.2024: Sessions Judge dismisses appeal, upholds conviction and adds liability under Section 34 IPC.
- 23.03.2026: Sikkim High Court delivers judgment on Criminal Revisional Petition No. 02 of 2025.
The Parties' Positions
For the Revisionists
- Challenged the seizure of property at Bagdogra, arguing absence of independent local witnesses.
- Contended that specimen fingerprints were not lawfully obtained during custody without court permission.
- Argued that fingerprint evidence was unreliable due to lack of documentation on collection.
- Sought leniency in sentencing citing financial hardship and aged father.
For the State
- Maintained that seizures under Section 102 Cr.P.C. do not require witnesses.
- Submitted that fingerprint comparison was properly conducted and unchallenged during cross-examination.
- Emphasized that the revisionists failed to raise objections before lower courts.
- Argued that the sentences were already lenient given the gravity of the offence.
Relief Sought
The revisionists sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, or at minimum, reduction in punishment. They also requested that the High Court set aside the finding under Section 34 IPC and exclude the fingerprint evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, can interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by the trial and appellate courts in the absence of a glaring miscarriage of justice, particularly where fingerprint evidence is unchallenged and seizures were conducted under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The revisionists relied on State of Haryana v. Rajmal & Anr. and Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. to argue that seizure without local witnesses vitiated the prosecution case. They contended that the absence of court permission to collect specimen fingerprints during custody rendered them inadmissible. They further argued that the fingerprint expert’s opinion lacked foundational documentation and that the prosecution failed to prove chain of custody. They cited Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda and Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke to assert that revisional courts must intervene where evidence is unreasonably relied upon.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that Section 102 Cr.P.C. permits seizure without witnesses, distinguishing it from Section 100, which requires independent persons. It cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh to establish that non-compliance with procedural formalities does not invalidate evidence if the material is authentic. The State emphasized that the revisionists did not dispute the authenticity of their fingerprints during cross-examination, nor did they challenge the expert’s credentials. It argued that the revision petition was an abuse of process, seeking to reappreciate evidence under the guise of revision.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the settled principle that revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS is supervisory, not appellate. It cited Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda and Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke to hold that revisional courts must not reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, unreasonable, or based on no material.
"Unless the finding of the court is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
The Court examined the seizure of property at Bagdogra. It noted that Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the presence of witnesses, unlike Section 100. It relied on State of Haryana v. Rajmal & Anr. and Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. to hold that even if a search is irregular, the seizure of items is not automatically invalidated. The Court found no prejudice caused to the revisionists, as the items seized were corroborated by other evidence.
Regarding the fingerprint evidence, the Court observed that the revisionists never denied that the specimen prints (Exhibits A and B) were theirs. The cross-examination focused only on procedural compliance, not authenticity. The expert’s testimony was detailed, corroborated by the requisition (Exhibit-9), and unchallenged on substance. The Court held that the absence of court permission for collecting fingerprints during custody does not render them inadmissible, especially where the accused does not contest their origin.
The Court further noted that the revisionists failed to raise these objections before the trial court or the Sessions Judge. It emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used as a second appeal. The sentences imposed - five years under Section 454 IPC and three years under Section 380 IPC - were well within the statutory limits and were, in fact, lenient given the scale of theft involving cash and jewellery.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 380 and 454 IPC, along with the additional finding under Section 34 IPC. The sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 for Section 454 IPC (with six months’ simple imprisonment in default) and three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for Section 380 IPC (with three months’ simple imprisonment in default) was confirmed. The Court directed that the records be remitted to the Courts below and that a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Concurrent Findings Are Presumptively Valid
- Practitioners must now demonstrate a glaring miscarriage of justice - not mere disagreement with evidence appreciation - to invoke revisional jurisdiction.
- Mere procedural irregularities in seizure or fingerprint collection, without proof of prejudice or fabrication, will not justify interference.
- Failure to raise objections before lower courts bars their assertion in revision.
Fingerprint Evidence Requires Substantive Challenge
- Specimen fingerprints collected during custody are admissible even without prior court permission if the accused does not dispute their origin.
- Cross-examination must target authenticity, not procedure, to undermine fingerprint evidence.
- Expert testimony supported by contemporaneous documentation (requisition, communication) is sufficient to establish chain of custody.
Procedural Non-Compliance ≠ Invalid Evidence
- Non-compliance with Section 100 Cr.P.C. (witness requirement) is irrelevant if Section 102 Cr.P.C. is invoked for seizure.
- Courts will not invalidate evidence solely due to absence of local witnesses unless the accused proves material prejudice.
- The Supreme Court’s consistent position - that illegal search does not vitiate seizure - is now reaffirmed at the High Court level in Sikkim.
