JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) takes exception to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby he affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog, Shimla, convicting and sentencing all of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 325 IPC and to pay the fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to pay the fine they have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 323 IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.11.2005, the complainant Kali Ram (PW-2) reported the matter to the police that he is a labourer by profession and he alongwith his friends Baldev Singh (PW-5), Hari Ram (PW-1), Dalip Singh (PW-4) and Balak Ram (PW-6) had gone to Kinnaur in connection with labour work. On 18.11.2005, they were coming to their homes and dis-boarded the bus at place Deothi, then accused Mathu Ram and Chandresh came from Deothi side while accused Ramesh and Balak Ram came to the spot holding sticks in their hands and gave beatings to the complainant with sticks and pelted bricks. A brick struck on the head of the complainant and resultantly he fell down. His brother Suresh Kumar was also beaten. The relations of the complainant and accused persons were inimical as there were land disputes inter se them. Rapat Ex. PW8/A and thereafter FIR Ex. PW10/A was registered against the petitioners. 3. The investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation challan was presented against the petitioners in the Court under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The learned trial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence convicted the petitioners as aforesaid and the judgment of conviction and sentence was though assailed by filing an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, however, the same was ordered to be dismissed. 5. It is against these findings, the petitioners have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the judgment rendered by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 5. It is against these findings, the petitioners have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the judgment rendered by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and therefore, deserves to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle must be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a case and the thumb rule is that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its onus, and the error in appreciation of evidence is apparent on the face of the record, then the Court can interfere in the judgment of conviction to ensure that the ends of justice are met. This is the linchpin around which the administration of criminal justice revolves. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it has to prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The paramount consideration of the Court in such like matter is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 8. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so required and it is essentially to appease the judicial conscious. 9. The challenges raised against the conviction of the accused concurrently held by the two inferior courts, no doubt, have to be appreciated within the narrow limits of revisional jurisdiction and in the absence of any glaring serious infirmity disclosing that such conviction will amount to miscarriage of justice, no interference thereof is permissible. 10. Revision is a paternal jurisdiction vested with a superior forum to correct and rectify the orders of the inferior courts, provided, such order suffers from serious infirmities likely to cause miscarriage of justice. 10. Revision is a paternal jurisdiction vested with a superior forum to correct and rectify the orders of the inferior courts, provided, such order suffers from serious infirmities likely to cause miscarriage of justice. Normally in revision, a re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless it is shown that the findings arrived at by the inferior courts could not have been formed on the materials placed or it is so perverse and unacceptable. A different view is possible, then what was formed by the inferior court on the materials is not sufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction and supplement the view of the revisional court if that view was also possible on the materials. 11. However, after going through the judgment of the inferior courts challenged in the revision with reference to the submissions made by the counsel and perusing the records of the case, if the revisional court is satisfied that the materials produced had been misconstrued and mis-appreciated and the conclusion arrived at by the inferior courts, even if made concurrently, is patently erroneous and legally unsustainable, it has to exercise its jurisdiction to pass such orders which should have been rendered by the inferior court to avoid miscarriage of justice. 12. Being a paternal jurisdiction, the circumstance required for an interference under the revisional jurisdiction is illegality, impropriety or incorrectness committed by the inferior court. So, the first question to be considered while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is whether the inferior court has committed any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order. 13. Thus, it can be taken to be well settled that the scope of the revision under Section 397(1) of the Code is for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. 14. Adverting to the facts, it would be notice that the specific case of the prosecution was that the petitioners in furtherance of the common intention had given beatings to PW-2 Kali Ram and his brother Suresh Kumar with stick and brick and thereby committed an offence for which they were charged. However, surprisingly, PW-2 Kali Ram in his statement before the Court nowhere even made a whisper about being hit by brick or stick but states that he was given beating by a pipe. 15. However, surprisingly, PW-2 Kali Ram in his statement before the Court nowhere even made a whisper about being hit by brick or stick but states that he was given beating by a pipe. 15. Interestingly, PW-1 Hari Ram, is one of the alleged eye witness of the incident and is also the witness to the memo of recovery Ex. PW1/A of the brick that has been used to give beatings to Kali Ram (PW-2). Now, in case the recovery memo is seen, it makes an interesting reading which reads thus:- QnZ edcwtxh vkSj czkenh ,oa vnn bZV tks ,d rjQ ls VwVh gS rFkk [kwu yxk gqvk gSA c'kuk[rdrkZ uhps fy[ks xokgksa ds lkeus oknh lqjs'k dqekj iq= Jh yk;d jke tkr czkge.k fuoklh ykWxuk Mkd ?kj nsoBh rs] o Fkkuk fB;ksx ftyk f'keyk tks tk, ekSdk cdwgk eqdke uun nsoBh ukyk tgka ij bZVksa dk <sj yxk gS rFkk lqjs'k dqekj us ,d bZV ftlds ,d fdukjs ij [kwu tSlk yxuk ekywe yxrk gS rFkk VwVh gqbZ gS ftls lqjs'k dqekj us cryk;k fd ;gh og bZV gS ftlls ckyd jke nks"kh us fnukad 18-11-2005 dks blds HkkbZ dyhjke ds flj ij ekjh Fkh rFkk blus ;g bZV mBkdj >kfM+;ksa esa j[k FkhA vkt iqfyl dks is'k djh ftls iqfyl ctfj;k QnZ crkSj otg lcwr dCtk iqfyl esa fy;k tks dj QnZ ij o bZV tks diM+k esa Mkyh dks ctfj;k QnZ crkSj otg lcwr dCtk iqfyl esa fy;k tks fd QnZ o iqfyank ij is'k djrk o f'kuk[rdrkZ rFkk xokgu us vius&vius nLr[kr fd;s gSA 16. Narration of the recovery as reproduced above makes it difficult to believe that the brick alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence could have been recovered in a manner as suggested. What is more interesting is the fact that the brick alleged to have been recovered vide the aforesaid recovery memo Ex. PW1/A has not even been sent for forensic examination. 17. Apart from the above, it would be noticed that PW-3 Suresh Kumar has categorically admitted that there is enmity between complainant and the petitioners on account of their being a land dispute inter se them. The other eye witnesses who have been examined as PW-4 and PW-6 respectively have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile 18. Adverting to the statement of PW-7 Dr. The other eye witnesses who have been examined as PW-4 and PW-6 respectively have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile 18. Adverting to the statement of PW-7 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, he has categorically stated that the injuries stated in the MLC Ex. PW7/B pertaining to Kali Ram and Suresh Kumar injured could be caused by fall. Thus, it can safely be concluded that even the medical opinion does not support the case of the prosecution. 19. It is rather surprisingly, if not, shocking that all what have been stated hereinabove appear to have been conveniently ignored by the learned Courts below and to say the least findings recorded by them are perverse and definitely call for interference as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are set aside.