Revisional Court Cannot Sit as a Second Appellate Forum – Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC

“Frequent Beatings, Dowry Demand of ₹20,000/- and Threats Proven – Revisional Interference Unwarranted Where Two Courts Have Given Concurrent Findings”, In a significant reaffirmation of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction of a man for cruelty to his wife, physical assault, and criminal intimidation, while modifying the sentence under Section 498A IPC from three years to one year. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that unless the findings of the trial and appellate courts are “grossly erroneous” or “perverse,” the High Court, in its revisional capacity, cannot reassess evidence or substitute findings of fact.

“Revisional jurisdiction is not appellate in nature. It cannot be used to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perversity, jurisdictional error, or a miscarriage of justice is shown.”

The Court cited authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, Malkeet Singh Gill, Kishan Rao, and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, to underline the doctrinal bar on reappreciation of evidence in revisional proceedings.

“Frequent Assaults and Dowry Demand Were Proved by Family Members of the Accused Himself” – High Court Finds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC Fully Justified

The allegations stemmed from a pattern of cruelty and abuse inflicted by Shyam Lal upon his wife Bina Devi (PW1). She testified that her husband used to beat her in a drunken state and repeatedly demanded ₹20,000, threatening eviction if she failed to bring the money from her parents.

Importantly, this was corroborated not just by her father (PW6) but also by the accused’s own brother (PW4) and father (PW8). Dr. Surinder (PW5), who conducted the medical examination, confirmed that the injuries were consistent with assault by blunt force. The Court relied on Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai to emphasize that medical evidence pointing to alternative causes like fall or self-infliction cannot override credible ocular testimony.

Justice Kainthla noted: “The evidence of the victim is not only consistent but is fully supported by multiple witnesses, including those from the accused’s family. Minor discrepancies do not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony.”

“Minor Contradictions Are Not Fatal – Courts Must Avoid Hyper-Technical Dissection of Eyewitness Accounts”

The petitioner had argued that contradictions in testimony regarding who held which part of the victim’s body during the assault—neck or hand—were fatal to the prosecution. The Court rejected this contention outright, relying on a long line of Supreme Court judgments from Leela Ram, Appabhai, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, holding:

“Such trivial variations are the natural outcome of human memory and the passage of time. The core of the prosecution’s case remains unshaken.”

It also addressed the alleged inimical disposition of certain witnesses, noting that the presence of enmity is a double-edged sword—while it may create a motive to falsely implicate, it can also explain why a crime was committed.

“Witnesses like the brother and father of the accused had no plausible reason to falsely depose against their own kin. Their testimonies, therefore, cannot be discarded lightly.”

“Maximum Sentence Should Reflect Risk and Circumstance – Accused Had Already Left Home Before Incident”

While upholding the conviction, the Court found the imposition of the maximum three-year sentence under Section 498A IPC unjustified, particularly when evidence showed that Shyam Lal had left the matrimonial home nearly one year prior to the incident.

Justice Kainthla held: “The Trial Court assigned no reason for awarding the maximum sentence. The danger to the victim had clearly abated by the time of the incident. Judicial discretion must consider proportionality.”

Accordingly, the sentence was reduced from three years to one year, and the fine was halved from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000, while retaining the default sentence of one month. The sentences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, both amounting to one month simple imprisonment, were affirmed in their entirety.

“Jurisdiction to Correct Legal Error Does Not Include Substituting Factual Appreciation” – High Court Warns Against Expanding Revisional Power Beyond Its Scope

Summarising the legal position, Justice Kainthla observed:

“Concurrent findings by two courts based on sound appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened unless shown to be perverse or wholly unreasonable. The revisional court cannot act as if it were sitting in appeal.”

The revision was thus partly allowed, only to the extent of modifying the sentence under Section 498A IPC, with all other findings of guilt and sentences left undisturbed.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2025