JUDGMENT & ORDER : Shashi Kant, J. Heard Sri. Yogendra Misra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order, dated 05.07.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 18/1992 (Gappu & others v. State of U.P.) whereby appeal filed by the accused revisionists has been dismissed and judgment and order, dated 12.08.1992 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Case No. 217/1988 (State of U.P. v. Gappu and Others), whereby the accused revisionists were convicted and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34, IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34, IPC has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists urged that : 3.1. In the charge framed against the revisionist Ram Narain, it is stated that he has caused injuries to the injured persons. He has also been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, IPC for causing injuries to the injured persons while there is no evidence to the effect that revisionist Ram Narain has caused injury to anyone. Above wrong narration of facts in the charge has caused serious prejudice to the revisionist Ram Narain and he became handicapped to put his defence properly. As such, the revisionists are entitled to be acquitted only on this ground. 3.2. The first informant Jhaoo Lal has admitted that he did not dictate the FIR which is clearly indicative of the fact that FIR was written in the police station on dictation of the police. 3.3. In the Chithi Majrubi, there is no mention of the time of the incident and crime number, which goes to show that the FIR is ante time. 3.4. Injured Gopal was sent to the Hospital before lodging of the FIR which shows that the entire prosecution story is false. 3.5. At the time of the incident, there was a dark night and due to this, alleged incident could not be seen by anyone. This fact has also found support from the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. 3.6. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are against the evidence available on records, based on misreading of evidence available on record and are bad in law. 3.7. The revisionist Ram Narain is father of other revisionist Gappu. This fact has also found support from the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. 3.6. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are against the evidence available on records, based on misreading of evidence available on record and are bad in law. 3.7. The revisionist Ram Narain is father of other revisionist Gappu. The revisionist Ram Narain is an old, weak and infirm person of 65 years while revisionist Gappu is aged about 45 years old and under obligation of family liabilities. 3.8. The sentence awarded to the revisionists by the Courts below is harsh and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.9. The revisionists are not previously convicted and except the present case no criminal case is pending against them. 3.10. The Courts below have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C., which is an illegality, apparent on the face of record. 3.11. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on decisions of following cases in support of his above contentions. 3.12. In Sukhram and Others v. State of U.P., (1974) AIR SC 323, in this case the appellants were convicted under Sections 307/149 and 147, IPC. Considering the facts of the case, the Court has altered their conviction to Section 324/149 from Section 307/149 and also reduced the sentence awarded to the appellants. 3.13. In Satsen v. State of U.P., (2014) 1 AllCriR 407, in this case considering the 66 years age and ailment of the appellant and the fact that appeal came up for hearing after 32 years, sentence of the appellant under Section 307, IPC was converted into fine. 3.14. In Babu Ram and Others v. State of U.P., 2012 (78) AllCriC 421 , in this case also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the appellants was converted to Section 324/34, IPC from Section 307/34 IPC and the Magistrate concerned was directed to consider the application for compounding of the offence. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. urged that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have examined the above contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists in detail in their respective judgments and orders and recorded their concurrent findings of facts regarding guilt of the revisionist. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. urged that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have examined the above contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists in detail in their respective judgments and orders and recorded their concurrent findings of facts regarding guilt of the revisionist. No illegality or perversity have been shown in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. As such, this revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 6. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that : 6.1. On 23.07.1988, P.W.1 Jhaoo Lal submitted a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) to the Police Station Katra Kotwali, Mirzapur stating therein that on the aforesaid date at about 9:00 a.m., the revisionists were quarreling with Smt. Gainda Devi P.W.3. In said quarrel, the first informant, Jhaoo Lal P.W.1 and his son Gopal P.W.2 intervened, which caused annoyance to the revisionists and they threatened to see them i.e. first informant and his son. As consequence of above incidence, on the same day at 5:00 p.m., the revisionists reached to the house of the first informant, at that time the first informant, his son Gopal and his wife were sitting at the door of their house. The revisionist Ram Narain exorted for killing them and the revisionist Gappu caused several injuries to Gopal P.W.2 using Nahanni (a sharp edged iron weapon) carried with him. When the first informant tried to save him, he was also attacked by the revisionist Gappu, the wife of the first informant also tried to save her son, on that the revisionist Ram Narain captured her. On alarm, the witnesses Hardev Raidas, Banarasi Kahar and Others reached to the spot on which the revisionist made their escape good from the scene of the occurrence. On the basis of the above written report, the FIR (Exhibit Ka-4) of the case has been lodged as Case Crime No. 374 of 1988, under Section 307/34, IPC, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur at 19:30 hours. Supplementary FIR of the case (Exhibit Ka-5) is also prepared. 6.2. Entry for registration of the case has been made at G.D. Entry No. 51/1930 dated 23.07.1988, a copy of which is Exhibit Ka-4. Supplementary FIR of the case (Exhibit Ka-5) is also prepared. 6.2. Entry for registration of the case has been made at G.D. Entry No. 51/1930 dated 23.07.1988, a copy of which is Exhibit Ka-4. Injured Gopal and first informant have been medically examined and their injuries reports were prepared. Injury report and supplementary injury report of injured Gopal are Exhibit Ka-6 and Exhibit Ka-7 respectively and injury report of Jhaoo Lal is Exhibit Ka-8. 6.3. The Investigating Officer S.I. Shyam Bahadur Lal P.W.5 has investigated the case, who copied the necessary documents in C.D., taken statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-2) and after completing all necessary formalities, filed the charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-3) against the revisionists. 6.4. The revisionists were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6.5. The prosecution has examined first informant and injured Jhaoo Lal P.W.1, injured Gopal P.W.2, Gainda Devi P.W.3, Maiku Lal Sharma P.W.4, S.I. Investigating Officer Shyam Bahadul Lal, P.W.5 and Dr. A.P. Singh P.W.6 and produced documentary evidence written report (Exhibit Ka-1), site plan (Exhibit Ka-2), charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-3), injury report of injured Gopal (Exhibit Ka-6), supplementary injury report of injured Gopal (Exhibit Ka-7) and injury report of injured Jhaoo Lal (Exhibit Ka-8), in support of its case. 6.6. After hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence avaiable on the record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has proved its case against the revisionists beyond doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them vide impugned judgment and order as stated above. 6.7. The Appellate Court found no merits in the appeal filed by the revisionists and accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, as stated above. 6.8. Feeling themselves aggrieved therefrom, the accused revisionists have filed the present criminal revision. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above referred rival arguments raised on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the records which reveals that both the revisionists have been charged for inflicting injuries to the injured persons with Nahani (a sharp edged pointed iron weapon, used for cutting of the nails) on 23.07.1988 at about 5:00 p.m. with common intention to commit attempt to murder and grevious injuries to the injured persons and they are rightly charged under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, IPC. In view of the above, I find no illegality or irregularity in framing of the charge and contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionists for wrong framing of charge, is without any substance. 8. As far the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists for non-compliance of mandatory of provision of Sections 360 and 361, Cr.P.C., is concerned, has also no substance because as per the injury report and evidence of Dr. A.P. Singh, P.W.6, the injured Gopal has received total nine injuries amongst which seven injuries were punctured wound and injury No. 1 was a serious injury on stomach in which intestine was partially came out, injury Nos. 1 to 6 were caused by some sharp pointed and sharp edged weapon as per the opinion of the Doctor. As per opinion of the Doctor, injury No. 1 was grevious and capable to cause death. They were also caused by Nahani. In view of the above injuries, the revisionists have been rightly convicted under Section 307/34, IPC which is punishable by imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. As such, case of applicants does not come under the ambit of Sections 360 and 361, Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. As far the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists regarding point of sentence is concerned, I find some substance in that, in regard to the sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain because he has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324, IPC with the aid of Section 34, IPC and not independently under the above sections. It may also be mentioned here that no prosecution witness has deposed against the revisionist Ram Narain for causing any injury to anyone rather evidence against him is only of exhortation and capturing wife of first informant P.W.1 so far she might not intervene in the incident or cause any hindrance. In view of these facts, I find that sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain by the Courts below is harsh and excessive because it is equivalent to the sentence awarded to the main assailant namely the revisionist Gappu. In view of the above, the sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain requires modification. 10. In view of these facts, I find that sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain by the Courts below is harsh and excessive because it is equivalent to the sentence awarded to the main assailant namely the revisionist Gappu. In view of the above, the sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain requires modification. 10. All other arguments of learned counsel for the revisionists regarding darkness at the time of the incident, non-witnessing of incident by any one, not coming forward any independent witness to support the prosecution case, even alleged unwillingness of injured witness P.W.2, no intention to commit attempt of murder and other pleas are based on the disputed facts in respect of which concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below i.e. Trial Court as well as Appellate Court are available on the record. However to satisfy myself regarding their genuineness, I have also examined the evidence available on record and found myself in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Courts below after detailed analysis and marshaling of the evidence available on the record as is evident from pages 7 to 12 of the judgment of the Trial Court and from pages 6 to 12 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. 11. 11. For ready reference relevant portion of judgment of the Appellate Court is being extracted herewith : ^^-----------jke ujk;u }kjk xksiky ;k >kmyky dks ekjuk ugha dgk tkrk fQj Hkh vkjksi fojpu esa ;g rF; vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd xIiw rFkk jke ujk;u us xksiky rFkk >kmyky dks e`R;q dkjd o lk/kkj.k pksVs igaqpkbZA Li"V vkjksi u cuus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDrx.k Hkzfer gq;s vkSj Hkyh Ádkj viuk i{k j[kus esa vleFkZ jgsA vr,o vfHk;qDrx.k vkjksi ds fojpu esa gqbZ vfu;ferrk dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA eSus vkjksi dks Hkyh Ádkj i<+k vkSj le>kA vfHk;kstu i{k dk ÁkjEHk ls gh dFku gS fd jke ujk;u o xIiw vfHk;qDrx.k fnukad 23-7-1988 dks Ákr% 9%00 cts gh xksiky o mlds firk dks ns[k ysus dh /kedh fn;s FksA mlh lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa og lka;dky 5%00 cts >kmyky ds njokts vk;sA tcfd >kmyky] xksiky o mldh ek¡ vius njokts ij mifLFkr FksA jke ujk;u ds yydkjus ij xIiw us xksiky ij ugUuh ls vkØe.k fd;k rFkk mlds 'kjhj ij ,d nks ugha lkr pksVs igaqpkbZA vius lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa vfHk;qDr jke ujk;u us xksiky dh ek¡ dks cpkus ls idM+k rFkk vU; Ádkj ls Hkh xIiw dks xksiky rFkk >kmyky ij vkØe.k djus esa enn igqapkbZA bl Ádkj fo}ku lgk;d vij l= U;k;k/kh'k us nksuksa vfHk;qDRkksa ds fo:} /kkjk 307 lifBr /kkjk 34 rFkk /kkjk 324 lifBr /kkjk 34 HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd;sA eq>s vkjksi ds fojpu esa dksbZ Hkh fof/kd =qfV ugha ekywe iM+rh gSA vr,o vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdZ esa eSa dksbZ lkj ugha ikrk vkSj vkjksi dks lgh <ax ls fojfpr fd;k gqvk ikrk gawA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks fl} djus ds fy;s vfHk;kstu us Jh >kmyky dk ijh{k.k fd;k gSA Jh >kmyky ,d vkgr ÁR;{kn'khZ lk{kh gS ftldks ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr ds fo"k; esa dksbZ lUnsg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA Jh >kmyky us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k gS fd fnukad 23-8-1988 dks lk;adky 5%00 cts og viuh iRuh o yM+ds xksiky ds lkFk njokts ij cSBk FkkA blh chp vfHk;qDrx.k jke ujk;u o xIiw mlds njokts ij vk;sA jke ujk;u ds yydkjus ij xIiw us xksiky ij ugUuh ls vkØe.k fd;k vkSj mldks 7 pksVs igaqpkbZA tc og cpkus nkSM+k rks mldks Hkh ugUuh ls pksV igaqpkbZA tc xksiky dh ek¡ cpkus nkSM+h rks jke ujk;u us mldks ncksp fy;kA vius Áfri`PNk esa xokg us fnukad 23-7-1988 dks 9%00 cts Ákr% ?kfVr ?kVuk ds ckjs esa lfoLrkj c;ku fn;k gSA mlus vkxs dgk gS fd xIiw }kjk xksiky ij vkØe.k djrs le; og cSBk gqvk FkkA deht o iSUV igus j[kk FkkA ugUuh ls tks pksVs igaqpkbZ xbZ mlds QyLo:i deht o iSUV esa Nsn gqvkA xokg us lfoLrkj ?kVuk dk o.kZu fd;k gSA xIiw }kjk xksiky ds fdu&fdu vaxks ij ugUuh ls pksV igaqpkbZ xbZ gS Li"V :i ls crk;k gSA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us esjk /;ku >kmyky ds bl dFku dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k fd og bl le; fjiksVZ esa vafdr ,d 'kCn Hkh cksydj ugha fy[kk ldrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g dguk pkgk fd fyf[kr fjiksVZ Án'kZ d&1 >kmyky }kjk cksydj ugha fy[kkbZ xbZ FkhA >kmyky us l'kiFk c;ku fd;k gS fd mlus jktw dks cksydj fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ FkhA lEHko gS fd ftu 'kCnksa esa fjiksVZ fy[kh xbZ og 'kCn >kmyky u crk;s gks ysfdu ?kVuk dk iw.kZ o.kZu mlus ys[kd ds lkeus [khap fn;k gks vkSj ys[kd us fjiksVZ Án'kZ d&1 rS;kj dj nh gksA bl Ádkj ls fjiksVZ ds fy[ks tkus ls vfHk;kstu ds dFkkud ij dksbZ Hkh ÁHkko ugha iM+rkA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us Fkkus ij rS;kj dh xbZ fpV~Bh et:ch dh vksj Hkh esjk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gS vkSj ;g cgl dh gS fd fpV~Bh et:ch fy[kh tkus ds le; eqdnek ntZ ugha gqvk FkkA bl Ádkj fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh dguk pkgk gS fd ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ tks 5%00 cts ntZ gksuk dgh tkrh gS 5%00 cts ds ckn ntZ dh xbZ vkSj ml ij iwoZ dk le; Mkyk x;kA fpV~Bh et:ch esa vijk/k la[;k u fy[kh tkus ds dkj.k ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Fkkus ij ml le; vafdr ugha gqbZ ftl le; vafdr gksuk nf'kZr gSA lEHko gS fd fpV~Bh et:ch rS;kj djus okys vf/kdkjh dh vlko/kkuh ds dkj.k fpV~Bh et:ch esa vijk/k la[;k u Mkyh xbZ gksA ;g rF; Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds dFkkud ij dksbZ Hkh cqjk ÁHkko ugha MkyrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk us vkxs rdZ fn;k gS fd ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fy[ks tkus ds iwoZ gh xksiky dks vLirky Hkst fn;k x;k FkkA ;g rF; vkgr Áfrosnu Án'kZ d&6 ls HkyhHkkafr Li"V gS fd xksiky dks dkŒlhŒihŒ 602 dSyk'k flag vLirky yk;s FksA bl rF; ls Hkh esjh jk; esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds dsl dh lR;rk ij dksbZ vkap ugha vkrhA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2 xksiky us Hkh viuh eq[; i`PNk esa Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd fnukad 23-7-1988 dks lk;adky yxHkx 5%00 cts jke ujk;u o xIiw mlds njokts ij lkFk&lkFk vk;s vkSj jke ujk;u ds yydkjus ij ml ij ugUuh ls pksV igqapkuk ÁkjEHk dj fn;kA mlus vkxs dgk gS fd tc mldh ek¡ mls cpkus nkSM+h rks jke ujk;u us mls ncksp fy;kA mlus ;g Hkh dgk fd xIiw us mlds firk >kmyky ij Hkh ugUuh ls pksV igqapkbZA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us esjk /;ku xksiky ds ml dFku dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gS ftlesa mlus dgk gS fd mlds firk >kmyky us ;g crk;k Fkk fd vU; xokghu xokgh nsus ds fy;s rS;kj ugha gS D;ksafd ?kVuk va/ksjs dh gSA bl dFku ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g dguk pkgk fd ekjihV dh ?kVuk lk;adky 5%00 cts u ?kVdj jkr ds va/ksjs esa ?kVhA xksiky dk mDr dFku bl rF; dh vksj dnkfi bafxr ugha djrk fd ekjihV dh ?kVuk jkr ds va/ksjs esa gqbZA ÁkjEHk ls gh vfHk;kstu dk 'kk'or ;g dsl jgk gS fd ekjihV dh ?kVuk lk;adky 5%00 cts ?kVhA ;g tqykbZ dk eghuk Fkk ftl le; lw;kZLr 6%45 cts ds ckn gh gksrk gSA bl Ádkj ?kVuk iw.kZ Ádk'k esa ?kVhA ;g va/ksjs esa dnkfi ugha ?kVhA ?kVuk ds ckn >kmyky us fyf[kr fjiksVZ rS;kj djkdj Fkkuk dksrokyh dVjk esa nkf[ky dhA ;g fjiksVZ 7%30 cts nkf[ky gksuk Ánf'kZr gSA ?kVukLFky ls Fkkus dh nwjh rhu fdyksehVj vafdr gSA xksiky dh n'kk xEHkhj FkhA >kmyky dks Hkh pksV vkbZ gqbZ FkhA bl Ádkj 7%30 cts fjiksVZ dk fy[kk tkuk cgqr gh LokHkfod ,oa lEHko yxrk gSA pksVfgyksa dk MkDVjh ijh{k.k ftyk vLirky fetkZiqj esa jkr 8%15 cts rFkk 8%45 cts gksuk nf'kZr gSA bu reke rF;ksa ls ;gh fl} gksrk gS fd ?kVuk 5%00 cts lka;dky dh ?kVh og jkr ds va/ksjs esa ugha ?kVhA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us xksiky ds bl c;ku dh vksj Hkh esjk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gS fd xokgksa us mlds firk ls dgk Fkk fd muls xyr xokgh us fnyk;saA bl Ádkj ds rF; >kmyky ftuls xokgksa ls ckrphr gksuk dgh tkrh gS muls vksj Li"V :i ls iwNh tk ldrh Fkh fdUrq lQkbZ i{k dh vksj ls >kmyky ls bu rF;ksa ij dksbZ Hkh ftjg ugha dh xbZA vr,o xksiky ds c;ku esa mijksDr rF; vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk dgh gqbZ ?kVuk dh lR;rk dh ys'kek= ÁHkkfor ugha djrhA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 Jherh xsank nsoh Hkh ?kVuk dh ÁR;{kn'khZ xokg gSA Jherh xsank nsoh us viuh eq[;i`PNk esa ;g dgk gS fd jke ujk;u dh eqxhZ mlds njokts ij xUnk djrh FkhA jke ujk;u ds ?kj dk dwM+kdjdV ukyh ls cgdj mlds njokts ij QSyrk FkkA bl ckr dh f'kdk;r jke ujk;u ls fnukad 27-7-1988 dks dh FkhA bl ij jke ujk;u o xIiw mldks xkyh nsus yxsA xksiky us xkyh nsus ls euk fd;k FkkA bl ij xIiw us mldks ns[k ysus dh /kedh nh FkhA Jherh xsank nsoh us vkxs dgk gS fd mlh fnu lk;adky 5%00 cts tc xksiky vius firk o ekrk ds lkFk vius njokts ij ekStwn Fks xIiw jke ujk;u ds lkFk vk;sA jke ujk;u us yydkjk vkSj xIiw us xksiky ij ugUuh ls pksVs igaqpkbZA mlus vkxs dgk fd tc >kmyky xksiky dks cpkus x;s rks xIiw us ml ij Hkh ugUuh ls pksV igaqpkbZA Jherh xsank nsoh us dgk gS fd ;fn eqgYys ds reke yksx chp cpko u djrs rks xIiw xksiky dks tku ls gh ekj nsrsA viuh Áfri`PNk esa Jherh xsank nsoh us dgk gS fd va/ksjk gks x;k Fkk vkSj lwjt Mwc x;k FkkA fdUrq mlus Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd xIiw ftl gfFk;kj ls xksiky dks ekjk Fkk mldks mlus Hkyh Ádkj ls ns[kk FkkA Jherh xsank nsoh ,d vf'kf{kr efgyk gSA vr,o lwjt Mwcus ds le; dk mldks HkyhHkkafr Kku ugha gks ldrkA bl Ádkj Jherh xsank nsoh dk mijksDr dFku ?kVuk ds le; dks lafnX/k ugha cukrkA ÁR;{kn'khZ xokgksa ds dFku dks fpfdRlh; lk{; ls Hkjiwj leFkZu feyrk gSA MkŒ ,ŒihŒ flag us Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd xksiky dh pksV la[;k 1 ls 7 ugUuh ls igqapkbZ tk ldrh gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk gS fd >kmyky dh pksV Hkh ugUuh ls igqapkbZ xbZ gksxhA Jh ,ŒihŒ flag us vkxs dgk gS fd xksiky dh pksV la[;k 1 e`R;qdkjd gks ldrh FkhA bl Ádkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku vij lgk;d l= U;k;k/kh'k us Bhd gh ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vfHk;qDrx.k us lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa xksiky ij Ák.k?kkrd geyk fd;k Fkk rFkk lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa gh >kmyky ij rst /kkjnkj vkStkj ls lk/kkj.k pksVs igqapkbZ FkhA mijksDr ifjppkZ ds vk/kkj ij eSa vihy esa dksbZ cy ugha ikrk gawA vr,o vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA fo}ku vij lgk;d l= U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukafdr 12-8-1992 iqf"V gksus ;ksX; gSA** 12. Above referred case law referred by the revisionists is clearly distinguishable and not applicable on the facts of the present case. 13. While examining the scope of judicial review in exercise of the revisionial jurisdiction in Om Prakash & others v. State of U.P. & others passed in Criminal Revision No. 4980 of 2005, decided on 12.11.2014, this Court has taken judicial notice of relevant case laws on the point and said as follows : "5. The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained. 6. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, (1951) AIR SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record. 7. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1962) AIR SC 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise. 8. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise. 8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, (1968) AIR SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal v. State of Orissa, (1970) AIR SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another v. Ram Narain, (1975) AIR SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and Others v. Ramayan Singh and another, (2002) 5 SCC 659 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2229 ); and, Johar and Others v. Mandal Prasad and another, (2008) CriLJ 1627 (S.C.). 9. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1960 ) the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct. 10. In Pathumma and another v. Muham-mad, (1986) 2 SCC 585 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1436 ) reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact. 11. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001) 9 SCC 631 : ( AIR 2002 SC 107 ) the Court said: "The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 12. In Ram Briksh Singh and Others v. Ambika Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 665 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4583 ), in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said: "4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice." 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, except to excessive sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain as stated above. 15. In view of the above, I find no justified reason or ground for any interference in the impugned judgment and orders except to the extent stated above. 16. For the reasons stated above, this criminal revision is partly allowed. 17. The conviction and sentence of the revisionist Gappu under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, IPC is confirmed. The conviction of the revisionist Ram Narain under Sections 307/34 and 324/34, IPC is also confirmed. However, sentence awarded to the revisionist Ram Narain under Section 307/34, IPC is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment instead of three years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324/34, IPC is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment instead of one year rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are being modified accordingly. 18. Office to directed to certify this order immediately to the C.J.M. Mirzapur/Court concerned for compliance as well as to send back the lower court's record forthwith. Order accordingly.