JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of this revision petition, petitioner prays for setting aside of judgment dated 24.12.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajouri, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.7.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Surankote, in FIR no.9/1990 under section 363/344/325 and 323 RPC has been dismissed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that order passed by the Court below has been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Court below could have deferred the hearing or dismiss it for non prosecution but it has been decided on merits without hearing the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner had a grave threat to his life at the hands of one Mohammad Ashraf S/o Raj Mohammad who is an informer of the security forces and on his information one Mohammad Shafi and his sons were taken into custody and subjected to inhuman torture by the security forces. The said person had threatened to get arrest the petitioner in the like manner; therefore, the petitioner fled away and hid himself in the valley. The said Mohammad Ashraf is wanted in connection with the murder of Mohammad Hussian and is hiding at some unknown place, reportedly in security forces camp, for which he is working and petitioner have a sigh of relief as the danger was away and visited his house to know the welfare of his family and also of the case but was arrested and confined to serve the sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Surankot. The Court below has not appreciated the evidence nor has resume of the witnesses been appreciated by the appellate court. The grounds taken before the appellant court was that the evidence had not been appreciated while deciding the appeal on its merits. It is also contended that the Court below had also not appreciated the fact that accused had denied the charges and pleaded the case to be cooked up by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution case was that the Boy was missing for which a missing report was lodged in the Police Station and much thereafter the boy was recovered and FIR lodged. The missing report could not be produced in the Court, which was a clear proof of the cooked case against the petitioner but not appreciated by the court below. 3. The prosecution case was that the Boy was missing for which a missing report was lodged in the Police Station and much thereafter the boy was recovered and FIR lodged. The missing report could not be produced in the Court, which was a clear proof of the cooked case against the petitioner but not appreciated by the court below. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. From the perusal of record, it reveals that on 9.3.1990 complainant Maqsood Ahmed lodged a written report in police station Mandi that one Riyaz Ahmed a minor 12 years of age had been missing since July 1989 and efforts to trace did not yield any result, now he has been traced by police of Mandi ; he had been taken by accused Mohd. Shafi and he placed victim in confinement; the victim was in bad condition and is on the verge of death; the accused had engaged victim as servant and used to keep in confined at night; the efforts made by victim to slip in night could not succeed and accused beaten the victim and fractured his teeth and thereafter threw victim on roadside. 5. On this, police registered FIR No. 9/1990 under sections 363/344/325/323 RPC. After concluding the investigation challan was produced before JMIC Surankote, where after conclusion of trial accused /petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 363,325 RPC each and simple imprisonment for a term of three months u/s 344,323 RPC each. 6. Before JMIC Surankote, prosecution produced PWS Maqsood Ahemed (nephew of victim), Mst. Azmat Bi Sister of Victim), Mst. Alam Bi (Mother of Victim), Mohd Rafiq, Mohd. Riyaz (Victim), Dr. Avtar Singh , Dr. Jivan Lal and I/O Mohd, Shafi ASI. 7. Court of JMIC Surankote after appreciation of evidence on record held that Minor victim Mohd. 6. Before JMIC Surankote, prosecution produced PWS Maqsood Ahemed (nephew of victim), Mst. Azmat Bi Sister of Victim), Mst. Alam Bi (Mother of Victim), Mohd Rafiq, Mohd. Riyaz (Victim), Dr. Avtar Singh , Dr. Jivan Lal and I/O Mohd, Shafi ASI. 7. Court of JMIC Surankote after appreciation of evidence on record held that Minor victim Mohd. Riyaz was competent witness and has clearly spelt out the circumstances leading to his kidnapping ; he has deposed in clear terms that he was returning from Samote en-route to home; he alighted from the bus near Dhunak bridge; the accused met him, who lifted him in a bus and took him to chandak and then to Challak Dangree via Mandi; accused engaged him as domestic servant and exploited his labor for 8 months; he beaten him and broken his 3 teeth and thereafter left him at some unknown place; wherefrom somebody took him Poonch Hospital; where he remained as indoor patient for 15 days; he repeated implorations to accused to let him free. 8. Court of JMIC has further held that statement of minor victim is further corroborated by statements of Maqsood Ahemed (Nephew of Victim), Mst. Azmat Bi (Sister of Victim) and Mst. Alam Bi (Mother of Victim). All these have in one tone stated the circumstances under which victim was found missing and involvement of accused in kidnapping of victim. PW Maqsood Ahmed has proved FIR. Court of JMIC also held that PW Jivan Lal Doctor has found three incisors of victim fractured, so it corroborates the fact stated by victim that his three teeth were broken by accused. PW Dr Avtar Singh who examined the victim also found features of mal nutrition, vitamins, deficiency and sign of pneumonia, beside fracture three incisor and abrasion in victim. Court of first instance therefore came to definite conclusion that statement of minor child inspires confidence of court and defense failed to prove false involvement. 9. Sessions Judge Rajouri, in appeal, has held that argument of appellant that Court below has passed the judgment on the basis of presumption, was not tenable. Because appellant has not challenged truthfulness of statement of victim, a minor child, but has pleaded that investigation has not sufficient evidence. 9. Sessions Judge Rajouri, in appeal, has held that argument of appellant that Court below has passed the judgment on the basis of presumption, was not tenable. Because appellant has not challenged truthfulness of statement of victim, a minor child, but has pleaded that investigation has not sufficient evidence. Appellant court has held that accused in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C has stated total denial of incriminating materials produced by prosecution during trial, he has only pleaded that I/O demanded a shepherd dog in 1989 , which he did not give so he has falsely been implicated. This defense did not find appellant court a plausible reason for involvement of accused in crime. Appellant court has held that court below has categorically recorded his awareness in appreciating the statement of victim who was minor child and thereafter held that there was sufficient corroboration from other statements. Appellant court has also repelled the plea of accused/appellant that there was no corroborating of statement of victim, by specifically stating in judgment that even JMIC could have believed the statement of victim, because victim had given vivid description of the location, of house of accused, its surrounding and names and strength of family of accused, entire painful experience which he suffered ever since the accused took him to his house and kept him in captivity for eight months. 10. The appellate Court also upheld the judgment of JMIC Surankote. 11. In present revision, petitioner has stated that he was not heard by court below in appeal, but from the perusal of interim orders and file of appellate court, it reveals that after conviction on 18.7.1995, appellant filed appeal before Sessions Court Poonch, on 20.7.1995, this appeal was dismissed in default on 8.7.1997; then appellant filed a petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. No. 61/1997 before High court, which was allowed by High Court on 1.4.2000 and it was directed that appeal cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit in case appellant remains absent. High Court also transferred the appeal file to Sessions Judge Rajouri instead of Session Judge Poonch by High Court on the ground that JMIC Surankote, who passed the order of conviction against appellant at relevant time, was posted as Sessions Judge Poonch on his promotion. High Court also transferred the appeal file to Sessions Judge Rajouri instead of Session Judge Poonch by High Court on the ground that JMIC Surankote, who passed the order of conviction against appellant at relevant time, was posted as Sessions Judge Poonch on his promotion. The conduct of appellant also remained casual before Sessions Judge Rajouri and he remained absent from Court continuously for years, so appellate court was left with no remedy except to decide the appeal on merit on 24.12.2002. 12. So argument of appellant that he was not heard, is devoid of merit. 13. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is how the petitioner has abused the process of court in prolonging the matter for years. The conduct of petitioner before this court has also remained very casual because from the perusal of interim orders it reveals that this petition has been filed on 05.06.2003, now we are in 2017 and petitioner always tried to avoid his appearance in the Court. His counsel always tried to linger on the matter for argument. Even on 2.6.2009, the suspension order of sentences of petitioner was withdrawn by this Court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him; on 23.9.2010 again non-bailable warrant was issued, but petitioner did not appear; but warrant was not executed; again on 25.8.2015 warrant was issued; finally petitioner was arrested on 21.9.2015 and was granted again bail. There is order dated 10.2.2016, wherein this court has held that this petition has remained on board for 13 years, and counsel always sought adjournment with one pretext to another. But still counsel Cr. Rev No.51/2003 Page 8 of 11 remained casual in his approach. On 7.7.2017 counsel again sought adjournment and last opportunity was provided. On 27.7.2017 again matter was listed again a request was made for adjournment and matter was fixed for 28.7.2017. On next day again adjournment was sought but court did not allow the counsel so it has been argued by counsel for petitioner. 14. Counsel for petitioner has also argued that evidence produced by prosecution, has not been properly appreciated by both court below. 15. I have carefully gone through the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of trial by JMIC Surankote. The statement of victim, Riyaz Ahmed, was clear and he has given vivid description of location of house of accused, its surrounding, names and strength of family of accused. 15. I have carefully gone through the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of trial by JMIC Surankote. The statement of victim, Riyaz Ahmed, was clear and he has given vivid description of location of house of accused, its surrounding, names and strength of family of accused. He has also stated the entire painful experience which he suffered ever since the accused took him to his house and kept him in illegal confinement for eight months. He has also stated that he was beaten by the accused when he tried to slip from the house in the night with the result his three teeth were fractured. PWs Dr. Jeevan Lal and Dr. Avtar Singh have supported the fact of injuries sustained by the victim, Mohd. Riyaz. The facts narrated by Riyaz Ahmed- victim have also been supported by the statement of PWs Maqsood Ahmed, Mst. Alam Bi and Azmat Bi. The credibility of these witnesses has not been shaken during cross examination. 16. In this way, I do not find any error of fact and law arrived at by both the Courts below. 17. In 2008 (11) SCC 76 in case titled Raj Kumar v State of H.P., it is held as under :- “7. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1975 SC 1960 ), the scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal revision was examined and it was held in a case involving vehicular accident as follows: "The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. While the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to justify itself that there was evidence in support of the 6 finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the Supreme Court on an appeal under Article 136 refused to interfere." 8. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 663 ) it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. In State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri ( 1999 (2) SCC 452 ) it was held that the revisional 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 unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 9. We find that the trial Court and the Revisional Court have analysed the evidence in detail to come to the conclusion about the guilt of the accused. There is no manifest error in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence. That being so, the High Court was justified in law in not exercising revisional jurisdiction. 10. The appeal is dismissed.” 18. In the present case also, there is concurrent finding recorded by JMIC and Sessions Court, which cannot be set aside by this court as counsel for petitioner has failed to project any perversity in the judgments of Court below. 19. Hence, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Judgements and sentences passed by JMIC Surankote, which were upheld by Sessions Judge Rajouri against petitioner, are upheld. File of Court below is sent back. One copy of order be sent to JMIC Surankote, Poonch, with direction to arrest the petitioner for undergoing rest of sentences awarded by JMIC Surankote.