Judgment 1. This criminal revision application at the instance of the three petitioners is directed against the impugned judgment dated 20.12.93 passed by Mr. Pashan Xaxa, learned Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1993, whereby he has convicted petitioner nos. 1 and 2 under section 324 IPC, and sentenced them to execute a bond of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety of the like amount for a period of one year. He has further convicted petitioner no.3 under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC and also sentenced him to execute a bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety of the like amount, while giving all Of them benefit of section 360 Cr. P.C. The trial court by its judgment dated 22.9.93, passed by Sri Ramchandra Das, Judicial Magistrate, lst class, Sahebganj, in G.R. case no. 709 of 1991/Tr. No. 742 of 1993 had convicted the three petitioners under section "323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The trial court further convicted them under section 324 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 11.1.91 at 1 p.m., the informant, Baleshwar Tanti, was in his house. One lady member was going to latrine which was objected and there was some wordy duel among the ladies and on hearing Hulla, accused-petitioners Nagendra Tanti, Jitendra Tanti and Dhirendra Tanti, armed with Bhala, iron rod and krich arrived and it is said that Dhirendra Tanti assaulted the informant with Bhala causing injury on left eye. Nagendra Tanti assaulted him with iron rod. Seeing the occurrence, one Rohit Tanti arrived to save the informant and he was also assaulted. After the occurrence, the informant was removed to the hospital for treatment where the police came and recorded his Fardbeyan. On the basis of the Fardbeyan, the F.I.R. was drawn up and the case was lodged and after completion of investigation the learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of the Magistrate for disposal. 3. In defence the accused-petitioners denied the prosecution case. It is submitted that both the parties are agnates and there is a civil dispute pending between them. 3. In defence the accused-petitioners denied the prosecution case. It is submitted that both the parties are agnates and there is a civil dispute pending between them. Further in defence the submission was that the learned Magistrate without considering the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure wrongly convicted all the three appellants who are the sons of late Ramesh Tanti, the own nephews of the informant. 4. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of the prosecution case, out of whom P.W.1 (Rama Devi) was declared hostile. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the three accused- petitioners above named in the manner stated above. The appeal was allowed in part and the sentence was modified in the aforesaid manner. However, the conviction was up-held in full. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prosecution completely overlooked the Fardbeyan of the petitioners herein, which was really in the nature of a counter case about the same occurrence. None of the courts below applied its mind to this aspect of the matter and, therefore, benefit of this should go to the petitioners. He next submitted that P.W.1 (Rama Devi) who is a next-door neighbour and the only independent witness examined on behalf of the prosecution, was declared hostile. P.W.2 (the uncle of the petitioners), and P.W.3 (the aunt of the petitioners), are interested witnesses and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been acquitted in the absence of any independent witness. He next submitted that Maya Devi and Rohit Tanti were examined by the investigating Officer and they also figured in the charge-sheet, but they were not examined by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case in the trial court. Adverse inference, therefore, should be drawn against the prosecution. He lastly pointed out a number of contradictions in the prosecution case the details of which are set out in paragraph 11 of the criminal revision application and on the strength of which he submitted that benefit should go to the petitioners. 6. Learned APP has submitted in opposition that the issues are concluded by findings of facts. He has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 981 (State of Kerala V/s. Puttumana Nath Jathavedan Namboodiri). 6. Learned APP has submitted in opposition that the issues are concluded by findings of facts. He has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 981 (State of Kerala V/s. Puttumana Nath Jathavedan Namboodiri). He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 was declared hostile because he was won over by the accused persons. He further submitted that the injuries on the body of P.W.2 , the uncle of the petitioners, is fully supported by the medical evidence on record. He lastly submitted that the petitioners have not been able to point out any mitigating circumstances and, in any case, the appellate court has applied its mind and modified the conviction and has given the petitioners benefit of section 360 Cr. P.C. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this criminal revision application has to be dismissed. Learned APP is right in his submission that the issues are concluded by findings of facts. The reliance placed on the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 981 (supra), is relevant in the present context, paragraph 5 of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : "Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand-point, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence." 8. In such circumstances, the other contentions raised by the petitioners do not arise for consideration by this court, the issues having been concluded by findings of facts. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there were contradictions in the prosecution evidence do not arise for giving benefit to the petitioners, inasmuch as the contradiction have been considered by the courts below and have been rejected. In so far as the submission regarding the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, the same is without substance. The fact that P.W.1 was declared hostile does not render the prosecution case improbable or unbelievable. As held above, the prosecution case against the petitioners has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence on the basis of evidence of other prosecution witnesses. 9. In the result, this criminal revision application is dismissed, and the impugned judgment dated 20.12.93 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 1993 is, hereby up-held.