( 1 ) THIS revision is brought from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, chikmagalur confirming on appeal the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Kadur, in a case under Ss. 448, 427 and 323 of the IPC convicting the petitioner-accused for those offences and sentencing them each to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case emerged out of a family dispute, because a8 to A10 being brothers of PW. 1 who is their sister, wanted to perform the marriage of her daughter PW. 6 with A4, but PW. 1 instead performed the betrothal ceremony with some other boy of her own choice. It was stated that on Friday the 29th of April 1973 the bridegroom party arrived for betrothal. These accused intercepted and raised their objections. Thereafter on the next day, that is, on Saturday the 21st of April 1973, PW. 1 and her husband PW. 3 called a panchayatj and wanted to settle the affair in that panchayat. On the following day which was Sunday dt. 22nd April 1973, PW. 3 went to the police outpost and got a police complaint written by one Govindappa, but he was referred to ajjampura Police Station. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ajjampur a deputed the Constable PW. 11 and he arrived in the village some time on the evening of 22nd April 1973, when the betrothal ceremony was performed. Since these accused had their objections right from the beginning, they became infuriated and A2 and A5 went to the house of the police patel PW. 4 and assaulted him as the latter had facilitated the betrothal ceremony. Thereafter, these accused went to the house of PWs. 1 and 3 and created a sort of rampage there. They not only assaulted pws. 1 and 3 and a few others, but also damaged the personal effects kept kept in the house. They threw away the movables and also edibles and created almost a panic. Injuries were caused to PWs. 1. 3, 8 and 10, the latter two being present at the time of the incident. Subsequently, these four persons were produced before the Doctor PW. 2 and the injury reports were obtained. It was also stated by the witnesses that the assault was actually made over PWs. 1, 3 and 5 to 10, the remaining PWs. 1. 3, 8 and 10, the latter two being present at the time of the incident. Subsequently, these four persons were produced before the Doctor PW. 2 and the injury reports were obtained. It was also stated by the witnesses that the assault was actually made over PWs. 1, 3 and 5 to 10, the remaining PWs. did not receive discernible injuries so that they required no medical assistance. It was stated by PW1 that her elder brother A8 beat her with a chappal and thus dishonoured her within the meaning of S. 355 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) FOR this incident the FIR was instituted on the next day and the offences imputed against the thirteen accused were under Secs. 448, 427 and 323 of the IPC and against A8 also under S. 355 of the IPC. ( 4 ) THE prosecution produced several witnesses including the persons made subject to assault namely, PWs. 1. 3 and 5 to 10. Besides these witnesses, PW. 4 the police patel was also examined. PW. 11 the police constable came to state about his being deputed to facilitate the betrothal ceremony. PW. 2 was the Doctor and he proved the injury reports. PWs. 12 and 13 were the investigating officers. ( 5 ) THE defence of the accused was one of denial and they did not produce any witness. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and con victed the seven petitioner-accused under Sections 448, 427 and 323 of the I. P. Code. He sentenced them to various terms of imprisonments from three months to four months S. I. and with various amounts of fine from Rs. 100 to Rs. 300 for individual offences. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonments were to run concurrently. The seven accused came in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and their appeal for the offences under Ss. 448, 427 and 323 of the I. P. Code was dismissed, although the sentences were reduced to Rs. 100 fine for each count. The appeal filed by A-8 however succeeded in so far as the offence under S. 355 of the I. P. Code was concerned. He was acquitted of that charge. The seven accused have now preferred the present revision against their convictions and sentences. ( 7 ) AS observed by their Lordships in Duli Chand vs. Delhi administration AIR. 1975 SC. The appeal filed by A-8 however succeeded in so far as the offence under S. 355 of the I. P. Code was concerned. He was acquitted of that charge. The seven accused have now preferred the present revision against their convictions and sentences. ( 7 ) AS observed by their Lordships in Duli Chand vs. Delhi administration AIR. 1975 SC. 1960, (A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1960) the jurisdiction of the High court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice that the Cour will embark , on appreciation of evidence. In short, the perversity or the illegality of the order made by the Court is the question with which the High Court is essentially concerned. If the argument merely extends so that an attempt is made to point out a discrepancy here and there, and it is submitted that although some evidence was there but it was not sufficient to record a finding of conviction perhaps that would be outside the domain of the restricted jurisdiction under revision to be exercised by the High Court. In the instant case the learned counsel took me through the entire evidence and his entire attempt was to point out one discrepancy or the other which according to the learned counsel was the material discrepancy although according to the two Courts below these discrepancies were only of a minor detail and could only lead to a vague suggestion for one aspect or the other arising in the case. Thus, in my opinion, the efforts of the learned counsel would not go to invoke the revisional jurisdiction for which severely restricted considerations for re-appreciation of evidence are laid down by the Supreme Court. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel proceeded with his argument in that connection and pointed out that the prior incidents of Friday and Saturday were not properly placed before the Court. According to hima police complaint was instituted in respect of those incidents probably on the morning of 22-4-1973 and that police complaint was not filed before the trial Magistrate. It was further contended by the learned counsel that in Exhibit P-5 the F. I. R. , the incidents which took place on Friday and saturday were not mentioned. According to hima police complaint was instituted in respect of those incidents probably on the morning of 22-4-1973 and that police complaint was not filed before the trial Magistrate. It was further contended by the learned counsel that in Exhibit P-5 the F. I. R. , the incidents which took place on Friday and saturday were not mentioned. Similarly the learned counsel contended that P. W. 12 the Sub-Inspector of Police did not say that P. W. 11 was deputed to go and facilitate the performance of the betrothal ceremony. In answer to these arguments the learned State Public Prosecutor relied on the statements of P. Ws. 1 and 3 besides the statement of P. W. 11 the police Constable himself. PW. 1 no doubt stated for the incident which took place on Friday as well as the panchayati which was called on saturday. P. W. 3 although did not state about the panchayati as he was not asked to state about it, but did state about the Friday incident. P. W. 11 the police Constable no doubt stated that he was deputed to go and attend to the betrothal ceremony. The statements of these witnesses were believed both by the trial Magistrate and by the first Appellate judge. This Court does not find any cogent reason to discard these statements. If the defence in any manner depended upon the previous police complaint, they could as well summon it from the police record. It could not be the case of these accused that these incidents did not take place at all. It was not suggested that some other persons besides these accused committed this act of vandalism or assaulted these four persons. There is only a bare denial on the part of the petitioners-accused. The mahazar ext. P-6 that was prepared immediately after the occurrence as well as the statements of the other witnesses decidedly established that the entire house was rampaged. It could not be denied that a few persons were also assaulted and visible injuries were received by them. Thus, it could not be stated that simply because the previous F. LR. was not filed, that circumstance should go to belie the entire occurrence. It could not be denied that a few persons were also assaulted and visible injuries were received by them. Thus, it could not be stated that simply because the previous F. LR. was not filed, that circumstance should go to belie the entire occurrence. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel then pointed out that P. W. 3 the husband was held by A-9 and A-10 and so he could not have seen P. W. 1 being beaten and that PW. 1 although stated that A8, A9 and A10 assaulted her yet the latter two could not have assaulted her because they were holding p. W. 3. The learned counsel further pointed out that although p. W. 4 did not go to the house as he was himself assaulted by A-2 and a-5, yet he stated that P. Ws 1 and 3 were beaten by A-8 and A-12. Similarly, the learned counsel submitted that P. W. 6 although stated about the assault made by A-8 upon P. W. 1, but did not state about the other assault made by the different accused as she probably went inside the kitchen. As stated by the learned Sessions Judge, all these witnesses were not expected to see every detail of the occurrence. They stated before the Court whatever they themselves saw and might have inferred from what they heard from others. That is why they gave such statements. It could not be stated that there were in fact any discrepancies in their statements. Even if some discrepancy here and there is detected, the same is decidedly a minor one. Above all, the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned first Appellate Judge appreciated all these discrepancies which were pointed out before them. They have assessed the evidence keeping regard to these discrepancies. I do not think that it can be stated that the deductions made by them were in any manner perverse or illegal and hence this Court will have no hesitation to accept them. As I have remarked above, the entire argument was based on discrepancies and in fact re appreciation of evidence was sought for, which, to my mind, could not be done unless anything material was pointed out. As I have remarked above, the entire argument was based on discrepancies and in fact re appreciation of evidence was sought for, which, to my mind, could not be done unless anything material was pointed out. It appears the entire village where this occurrence took place consisted of 7 to 9 houses and as such it was not difficult to have identified each and every accused when they went and committed the assault of this description. Thus, there could be no -dispute that the petitioners-accused did go and commit the assault after trespassing inside the house and also created great mischief. As such, they were rightly convicted by the two Courts below and no other view could be taken. ( 10 ) THE revision is therefore devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .