The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed the principle that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence when trial and appellate courts have independently arrived at consistent findings of guilt. This judgment underscores the limited scope of revision under Section 401 CrPC and reinforces the deference owed to factual determinations made by courts directly hearing witnesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a violent assault on 28 February 2002, when four accused individuals attacked PW1 with sticks along a rural road in Pathanamthitta, Kerala. The assault resulted in grievous injuries, including fractures to the right leg and left wrist. The prosecution alleged that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention under Section 34 IPC, and charged them under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three levels of adjudication:
- 2004: Trial Court convicted all four accused and sentenced them to two years’ simple imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and two years’ imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 326 IPC.
- 2005: Accused Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the Sessions Court; the appeal was dismissed.
- 2006: Accused Nos. 3 and 4 appealed; their appeal was also dismissed.
Both appellate courts independently reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought revision of the concurrent findings, challenging the reliability of prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence. However, none of the petitioners appeared before the High Court. Notices were returned unclaimed or with endorsements of refusal and death. The Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to represent their interests.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC, can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts based on witness credibility and evidentiary appreciation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (via Amicus Curiae)
The Amicus Curiae contended that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were inconsistent in minor details regarding the sequence and manner of assault. He argued that these discrepancies, coupled with the alleged interest of PW2 and PW3 as relatives of the victim, rendered their evidence unreliable. He further submitted that the absence of independent medical corroboration for all injuries undermined the prosecution’s case.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial and appellate courts had meticulously evaluated the testimonies and found them mutually reinforcing despite minor variations. He emphasized that Section 34 IPC was correctly applied given the coordinated nature of the attack, and that the injuries were fully documented in medical reports (Exts P1 - P5). He argued that revision is not a forum for reappreciating evidence and that the findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, distinguishing it from appellate review. It held that revision is not a second appeal and cannot be invoked merely because the High Court might have viewed the evidence differently. The Court relied on the settled doctrine that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts are entitled to high deference, unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or tainted by material illegality.
"Minor discrepancies in the versions of prosecution witnesses, particularly in the heat of a violent incident, cannot be a ground to reject the entire testimony if the core narrative remains consistent."
The Court noted that PW1, the injured party, provided a clear account of the assault. PW2, who rushed to the spot upon hearing cries, corroborated the incident and facilitated medical aid. PW3, the victim’s wife, was present during the attack and identified the accused with specificity. The Trial Court and Appellate Court both found these witnesses credible, rejecting the defense’s claim of interest or bias. The Court observed that the medical evidence (Exts P1 - P5) supported the nature and extent of injuries as testified.
The Court further held that the application of Section 34 IPC was justified, as the evidence indicated a premeditated, collective act. The sentence imposed was deemed proportionate to the gravity of grievous hurt inflicted. No error of law or illegality was found in the proceedings.
The Verdict
The revision petitions were dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, affirming that concurrent findings based on credible witness testimony cannot be disturbed in revision absent perversity or illegality.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Concurrent Findings Are Final in Revision
- Practitioners must recognize that revision petitions under Section 401 CrPC are not substitutes for appeals.
- Any challenge to factual findings must demonstrate perversity, not mere disagreement.
- Courts will not reweigh evidence unless the lower courts’ conclusions are wholly unsupported.
Witness Credibility Cannot Be Undermined by Minor Inconsistencies
- Minor variations in time, sequence, or wording of testimony do not invalidate a prosecution case if the core facts remain consistent.
- Courts must distinguish between material contradictions and trivial discrepancies.
- Relatives of victims are not ipso facto interested witnesses; their testimony must be evaluated on its own merits.
Medical Evidence Supports but Does Not Solely Determine Guilt
- While medical reports are crucial, they are not indispensable for conviction where eyewitness testimony is clear and credible.
- The absence of a perfect match between medical findings and testimony does not create reasonable doubt if the overall narrative is coherent.
- Prosecution must still establish a chain of events linking the accused to the injury - eyewitnesses can fulfill this role.
