Patna High Court
BAL MANOHAR JALANversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Bal Manohar Jalan, was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, while the co‑accused were acquitted. He appealed the conviction, arguing that no admissible evidence linked him to the assault and that the trial and appellate courts improperly relied on an injury report that was never exhibited in evidence. The High Court examined its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.PC and noted that revision is not a re‑appreciation of evidence except in cases of glaring error or perversity. Finding that the injury report was read without being part of the record and that no other evidence proved the petitioner’s participation, the Court held the conviction to be perverse and unsustainable. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the conviction under Section 323 IPC was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can intervene under its revisional jurisdiction to quash a conviction when the trial court relied on non‑exhibited evidence.
- Whether the conviction under Section 323 IPC is sustainable in the absence of admissible evidence linking the petitioner to the assault.
- Whether the reliance on an injury report not part of the record constitutes a legal error warranting revision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 384
- Probation of Offenders Act
Subjects
- criminal revision
- conviction under Section 323 IPC
- evidentiary error
- injury report
- persistence of judgment
- high court jurisdiction
- miscarriage of justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1060 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1375 Year-2000 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Bal Manohar Jalan, Son of Late Hiralal Jalan, Resident of Village - Quilla
House, Patna City, P.S.- Chowk, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Prasad, Sri Bhagera Prasad, Resident of Village - Bhitri Begampur,
P.S.- Chowk, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Mudit Meet, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
15 13-02-2026 The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred
by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment dated
15.07.2019 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2019 passed by
learned Court of Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No.
277 of 2011, whereby in pursuance of the Criminal Complaint
bearing Complaint Case No.1375(C) of 2000 corresponding to
Trial No.1243 of 2010, learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Patna had found four accused persons including the
Petitioner guilty under Section 323 and 384 of the Indian Penal
Code and all the convicts were sentenced to R.I. for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Under Section 323 IPC and R.I. for
three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 384. However,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
2/8
in the Criminal Appeal filed by four convicts including the
Petitioner, the other three convicts were acquitted of all the
charges but the conviction of the Petitioner, Bal Manohar Jalan
was part set aside and part upheld. The Petitioner was acquitted
of charge under Section 384 IPC, but he was found guilty under
Section 323 IPC and even sentence under Section 323 was
modified by giving benefit by releasing him on probation under
the Probation of Offenders Act and with direction to the
Petitioner to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the
victim.
2. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition has
been filed by the Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per
the material on record, the very conviction of the Petitioner is
not sustainable and the judgment of conviction under Section
323 IPC is full of perversity of finding of facts. There is
apparent contradictions in the finding of the Court in view of the
fact that the victim has alleged that he was assaulted by all the
four accused but learned Appellate Court has acquitted all the
other three accused but he has not acquitted the Petitioner
herein.
4. He further points out that there is no cogent evidence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
3/8
on record to show that the alleged victim was assaulted by him.
He further clarifies that as per the statement of the victim, he
was treated subsequent to the assault by a doctor but during the
trial, no medical prescription regarding treatment or any injury
report has been brought on record by exhibiting the same but
learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has
committed serious error of law by reading the injury report
which was not exhibited. A document being in the file and
being a part of record are two distinct concepts. Unless any
document is exhibited and brought on record for consideration
of the Court during the Trial, the Trial Court or any Appellate
Court is not permitted to read it for passing the judgment. This
perversity is apparent on record. Whereas learned Trial Court
referring to the injury report, has believed that the victim had
got injury.
5. He also points out that learned Trial Court and learned
Appellate Court has disbelieved the case of the victim against
all other accused and they have also not believed the
prosecution case against the other co-accused in regard to the
assault, whereas the allegation of the alleged victim is that he
was assaulted not only by the Petitioner but also by other co-
accused. But there is no basis for the Trial Court or the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
4/8
Appellate Court to find that the allegation of the victim against
the Petitioner is proved. The whole conviction is based on
surmises and conjectures without any supporting evidence on
record.
6. However, learned APP for the State submits that there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence and the Petitioner has been
rightly convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court as well
as learned Appellate Court.
Extent and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court
7. Before I proceed to consider the rival submission of the
parties, it is desirable to see the extent and scope of revisional
jurisdiction of High Court. As per the statutory provisions and
judicial precedents, it is settled principle of law that the
revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is a kind
of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.PC in order to correct the miscarriage of
justice arising out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of
subordinate Courts by looking into correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order as recorded or passed
by subordinate Courts and as to the regularity of any proceeding
of such inferior Courts.
8. However, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
5/8
High Court is discretionary in nature to be applied judiciously in
the interest of justice.
9. Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is not
entitled to re-appreciate the evidence for itself as if it is acting as
a Court of appeal, because revisional power cannot be equated
with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be treated even
as a second appellate jurisdiction. Hence, ordinarily, it is not
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 Trial and Appellate Court,
unless there are exceptional situations like glaring error of law
or procedure and perversity of finding, causing flagrant
miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of the High Court.
Such exceptional situations have been enumerated by Hon’ble
Apex Court on several occasions which are as follows:-
(i) when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction
to try the case or;
(ii) when it is found that the order under revision suffers
from glaring illegality or;
(iii) where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence
which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(iv) where the judgment/order is based on inadmissible
evidence, or;
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
6/8
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the issue
has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the Appellate
Court or;
(vi) where the finding recorded is based on no evidence or;
(vii) where there is perverse appreciation of evidence or;
(viii) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously or;
(ix) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the
offence, which is invalid under the law.
10. However, it has been cautioned by Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the aforesaid kinds of situations are illustrative and
not exhaustive.
11. In regard to revisional jurisdiction, one may refer to
the following judicial precedents:
(i) Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
(1973) 2 SCC 583
(ii) K. Chinnaswami Reddy vs State of A.P.
1962 SCC Online SC 32
(iii) Duli Chand Vs Delhi Administration
(1975) 4 SCC 649
(iv) Janta Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.
(1992) 4 SCC 305
(v) Vimal Singh Vs Khuman Singh & Anr.
(1998) 7 SCC 323
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana I. J. Namboodiri
(1999) 2 SCC 452
(vii) Thankappan Nada & Ors. Vs. Gopala Krishnan
(2002) 9 SCC 393
(viii) Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh
(2002) 5 SCC 659
(ix) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
7/8
Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr.
(2002) 6 SCC 650
(x) Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
(2009) 13 SCC 330
(xi) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
(2012) 9 SCC 460
(xii) Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa & Anr.
(2014) 1 SCC 87
(xiii) Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors.
(2015) 2 SCC 721
(xiv) Sanjaysinh R. Chavan Vs. D. G. Phalke
(2015) 3 SCC 123
(xv) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2022) 8 SCC 204
Present Case
12. Coming to the case on hand, I find glaring perversity
apparent on record in view of the fact that the injury report
which is not exhibited and was not a part of the Court record for
consideration has been read for passing the judgment which is
not permissible as per law. If the injury report is excluded from
the consideration of the Court for passing the judgment, there is
no other evidence to show that he has been assaulted by the
Petitioner because his oral evidence has not been believed
against other co-accused, who, as per allegation assaulted the
victim. It is totally whimsical to believe the same allegation
against the Petitioner and not against the other co-accused
without any evidence on record. As such, seeing the perversity
apparent on record, I find that the the conviction is not
sustainable.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1060 of 2019 (15) dt.13-02-2026
8/8
13. Hence, Appellate Judgment upholding the conviction
under Section 323 IPC is not sustainable.
14. This petition stands allowed, accordingly setting
aside the impugned order.
15. The records of the Courts below be sent back
forthwith along with a copy of this order.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T
AFR
Checking your session…