HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRR No. 14/2014 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Pronounced on: 23.07.2025 Mr. Satish Kumar @ Babal .....Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. G.S Thakur, Advocate. v/s State through Police Station, Lakhanpur .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The appellant is aggrieved of judgment dated 06.03.2014, propounded by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua [“the appellate court”] by virtue of which, the conviction appeal preferred by him, against judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned CJM, Kathua [for short “the trial court”], came to be dismissed and his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 326 RPC came to be upheld. 02. The factual narration of the prosecution case, shorn of verbosity, is that on 06.05.2005, one Vijay Kumar [“the complainant”], lodged an oral report in Police Station, Lakhapur stating inter alia that he along with Tehsildar Kathua had gone to Ramnagar for demarcation of his land. After the demarcation process, at about 5 PM, he was called by the Tehsildar and while he was going to him, he was intercepted by accused persons, namely, Satish Kumar [the appellant], Pushap Nath and Nain Shukh, who had a land dispute with him. They started beating him with fists and blows, due to which he sustained a grievous injury on his ear. On the receipt of this report, FIR No. 18/2005 for offence under Section 341 and 343 RPC came to be registered. The investigation Sr. No. 71 2 CRR No. 14/2014 culminated in the final report against accused, including the appellant, for offences under Sections 326/341 RPC. 03. The appellant came to be charged by the trial court for the aforesaid offences and co-accused were charged under Section 341 RPC. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, a brief resume whereof is given hereunder:- 04. PW-1 Vijay Kumar, the complainant has deposed in support of his oral report that on 06.05.2005, he went to his land at Keerian, at around 5.00 PM. While he was proceeding towards the Tehsildar, he was obstructed by accused persons and they started beating him with fists and blows. It was alleged by the complainant that in the course of the assault, the appellant-accused, Satish Kumar @ Babbal, cut his right ear by tooth bite and it started bleeding. He rescued by Sardar Makhan Singh, Ashok Kumar and others. The Tehsildar informed the Police. Police registered the FIR and his blood stained shirt was seized. He was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to Jammu Hospital. The FIR does not bear his signatures. He lodged the oral report, however, he has admitted the contents of the FIR marked A and admitted the seizure memo of his shirt EXPW-VK. In cross-examination, he has stated that accused Nain Sukh is his uncle and other accused are his cousins. He admitted that there is no mention in the FIR that appellant-accused had bitten his ear and chopped it off, though he had disclosed this fact. He also admitted that he has disclosed it for the first time that appellant bit his ear. The complainant goes on to state that though the Punjab-Kathua road, on the eastern side of the place of occurrence, is a busy road, but at the time of occurrence neither any vehicle was plying nor any person passed through. Besides, Tehsildar, Patwari, Giradwar, Chowkidar, Sardar Makhan Singh and Ashok Kumar other persons were also 3 CRR No. 14/2014 present on spot. PW Makhan Singh is his relative and PW Ashok Kumar is the relative of both the parties. 05. PW-2 Ashok Kumar has stated that on 06.05.2005 at around 5 PM, Tehsildar went to the land of the parties for demarcation. He called the complainant, but he was restrained on way by the accused persons and complainant was not allowed to proceed towards Tehsildar. The parties grappled and the appellant-accused Satish Kumar had bitten the complainant and chopped his ear off. In cross-examination, he has stated that about 20-25 persons were present on the spot, including Sarpanch Rajesh Kumar and Lambardar Kewal Kumar and Patwari. He was about 20 yards away from the place of occurrence. He did not know how many blows were inflicted by each accused. The complainant was thrown on the ground and was assaulted by accused by fist and blows. He is cultivating land of the complainant as tenant for three years. 06. PW S. Makhan Singh has stated that on 06.05.2005 at about 5 PM, Tehsildar was conducting demarcation on the spot at Ramnagar. While he was passing through, he was called by the Tesildar. Complainant was also called by the Tehsildar and while the complainant was going towards him, the accused persons started beating him and accused Satish Kumar had bitten the complainant and chopped off his ear. Tehsildar called two police personnels from the police post. Besides, Tehsildar, Patwari, Sarpanch Rajesh Sharma and Ashok Kumar were present on the spot. Accused were empty handed and the occurrence went on for about 5-7 minutes. 6-7 persons were also present there. He intervened and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Complainant‟s shirt was stained with blood, but it was not seized. The blood and part of the ear had fallen on the ground but the ear piece could not be traced. 4 CRR No. 14/2014 The complainant was severely beaten, but he could not say that who inflicted how many blows/injuries. 07. PW-4 Mohinder Nath (Tehsildar) has stated that on 06.05.2005, he was posted as Tehsildar Kathua. He along with Girdwar and Patwari went to Gadiyal for demarcation of the land of the parties. During demarcation process, the parties started hurling abuses and grappled with each other. In the scuffle, the ear of the complainant got cut and severed. Accused had beaten the complaint and it was the appellant-accused Satish Kumar who chopped his ear off. The matter was reported to the Police. The complainant and accused Satish Kumar are cousin brothers. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember whether Numberdar or Chowkidar were present on the spot or not. However, about 10-12 persons including two revenue officials were present there. He has admitted that he has not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC that parties had grappled and abused each other, despite he narrated the same to the Police. He was the first person near them. He did not lodge report in the police station, but police was present there and report was lodged. He cannot say as to who had beaten whom and how many fists and blows were inflicted. It cannot be said that who had inflicted how many blows to each other. However, in the process, the shirt of the accused Satish Kumar was torn and the complainant Vijay Kumar suffered injury in his right ear. The persons present on the spot searched for the part of the ear which was severed but it could not found out. However, this fact is not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. 08. PW-5 Surinder Singh, Patwari of Patwar Halqua Keerian has stated that on 06.05.2005, he had gone for demarcation of the land belonging to accused Nain Sukh and others situate at Keerian Ramnagar, which was conducted in the 5 CRR No. 14/2014 afternoon under the supervision of the Tehsildar. The accused and the complainant party entered into arguments and then accused Nain Sukh and his sons over-powered the complainant and he saw the blood flowing from the ear of the complainant. He was told by the complainant that accused Satish Kumar had bitten his ear. Police was called by the Tehsildar. In cross-examination, he has stated that there were about 25-30 persons on the spot including the Revenue Officials. He was about 70-80 feet away from the scene of the occurrence. He does not know who saved the complainant from accused persons. He cannot say that who had beaten whom. 09. PW-6 Mukesh Kumar has stated that on 06.05.2005, he came to know about the quarrel. Complainant is his brother-in-law (Sister‟s husband). He came to Police Station Lakhanpur, where he saw the complainant in a pool of blood and his shirt was also blood stained, which came to be seized by the police. He has admitted the seizure memo of the shirt EXPW-VK. The witness also identified the shirt in the trial court. In cross-examination, he has stated that he saw accused Babbal, the appellant in the hospital, but no injury was seen on his person. 10. PW-Dr. Jeet Raj has stated that he examined the complainant brought by Constable Raghubir Singh of Police Station Lakhanpur on 06.05.2005 at 7.20 PM and noted following injuries on the person. 1. Outer margin of left pinna (central part about ½” x 2” is chopped off bleeding+(irregular margin) patient was referred to dental surgeon to R/o Human bite or otherwise. 2. He opined that injury is grievous in nature caused by blunt object and duration is fresh at the time of examination at 7.20 pm. He has admitted certificate EXPW-JR. 6 CRR No. 14/2014 In cross-examination, he has admitted that the date of issuance of certificate is tempered and not signed by him. He has further stated that he has not mentioned the colour and shape of the wound in injury no. 1. Only one injury was found and there was no other injury on the injured person. Injury no. 1 was caused on the left outer margin of pinna and not on the right. The patient was referred to dental surgeon. Injury no. 1 was possible by a fall on a hard surface. The witness was recalled for re-examination at the instance of the prosecution. In re-examination on 25.05.2008, he identified the injured Vijay Kumar in the trial court. He stated that as a matter of fact the injury was inflicted to the injured on his right ear which can be clearly seen by naked eye. In cross-examination on 29.12.2009, by the defence, he has stated that he has put in 25 years of service as Medical Officer. He did not see the injury form prepared by the police. He examined the patient in the emergency room of SDH Kathua and noted the injury. He has admitted that he had mentioned injury no. 1 in the certificate EXPW-JR on the left outer margin pinna and not on the right pinna. But, in fact the injury was inflicted on the right ear, which can be clearly seen by naked eye. He has admitted that the Certificate EXPW-JR is not correct with respect to the left ear. The injured was referred to dental surgeon. He issued the certificate EXPW-JR without getting the expert opinion or the report of the dental surgeon. He has admitted that in a case of human bite, there may be mark of lower front teeth and upper front teeth with depiction of actual size of teeth. 11. PW Bui Dass, the investigating officer has deposed that he investigated FIR No. 18/2005 and conducted the requisite legal formalities and laid a final report against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he has stated that 7 CRR No. 14/2014 Tehsildar had seen the occurrence but it is not disclosed in the FIR. It is mentioned in the FIR that complainant had suffered injury on his ear, but the name of the accused, who inflicted that injury not disclosed in the FIR. He has also admitted that there is no mention in the FIR about the fact that particular ear of the complaint was chopped off by a particular accused by human bite. It was narrated by the complainant in the FIR that accused had assaulted him by fists and blows and caused injuries all over the body and grievous injury upon the ear. 12. This is the crux of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating excerpt whereof was put to the accused persons in their respective statements under Section 342 CrPC, whereby they denied the incriminating imputations arrogated to them by the prosecution witnesses by contending that they have implicated them in a false and frivolous case on account of animosity because complainant intended to grab their land. Accused opted to enter the defence but failed to examine any witness. 13. Learned trial Court, on critical evaluation of the prosecution evidence, concluded that prosecution has succeeded to make out a case against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. As a result, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and further in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 326 RPC. He was also sentenced to one month imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 and in default ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days for offence under Section 341 RPC. Accused no. 2 and 3, also came to be convicted. However, accused no. 2 being a government employee and no. 3 being an old person of more than 90 years of 8 CRR No. 14/2014 age were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and came to be released. 14. The appellant assailed his conviction and sentence, pronounced by the trial court before the appellate court inter alia on the grounds that, keeping in view the nature of the injury allegedly sustained by the injured, Section 326 RPC has no application, as it pre-supposes the infliction of grievous injury by a dangerous weapon; the FIR is silent about the fact whether injury was sustained by the injured on the left or the right ear as also about the witnesses to the occurrence; the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other and the deletion of charge of simple hurt by the investigating officer is suggestive of the fact that the alleged occurrence had not taken place at all. Aside, it was also urged that prosecution evidence was replete with contradictions and the cumulative effect of these aspects was that learned trial Magistrate had erred in recording the finding of conviction and sentence. 15. Learned appellate court having re-appreciated the evidence on record, found the statement of the injured/complainant, PW Vijay Kumar, complete and compact in all respects and in conformity with the prosecution version that it was the appellant who had bitten his ear with his teeth and chopped it off. It was found by the appellate court that statement of the injured was corroborated not only by the related witnesses but also by the independent revenue officials, present at the scene of occurrence. In view of the testimonies of the complainant/injured, duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses including the revenue officials, learned trial court as also the first appellate court, did not attach much importance to the statement of the medical officer, whose statement was recorded thrice during the trial and he remained confused about the location of the injury on the person of the injured. Learned appellant Court is of the view 9 CRR No. 14/2014 that prosecution case cannot be belied for the reason that doctor had confused himself about the part of the body where the injury was sustained by the injured. 16. Learned appellate Court also rejected the argument of the appellant that Section 326 RPC has no application as it pre-supposes infliction of grievous injury by dangerous weapon or means. Learned appellate court relied upon Jamil Hassan vs. The State; 1974 Crl. LJ 867 to conclude that human teeth can be used as a weapon of attack or defence and that a human tooth is an instrument for cutting and serves as a weapon of offence and defence and therefore, the injury caused by a tooth bite would be an offence under Section 324 or 326 depending upon the nature of injury „simple‟ or „grievous‟. According to learned appellate court, since a portion of the ear of the injured was chopped off by the appellant with his teeth, therefore it amounted to permanent disfiguration of the face within the meaning of clause 6 (3) of Section 320 RPC and appellant was rightly convicted for offence under Section 326 RPC. 17. Learned appellant court also rejected the argument that FIR was silent about the witnesses to the occurrence and that it was also not in the FIR whether injury was sustained by the victim on his left or right ear. Learned Court is of the opinion that it is trite that FIR is not an encyclopaedia to contain all the minute details. 18. The appellate court also observed that related witnesses and interested witnesses are not synonymous terms as there may be a situation where only a relative of the victim would be a witness and as such, there is no disqualification in law for such witness to depose and the evidence of the relative can be acted upon, provided it is reliable and trustworthy. 10 CRR No. 14/2014 19. Learned appellate court is of the view that the statement of the injured alone is sufficient to establish guilt against the appellant in the present case as statement of an injured has a greater evidentiary value, therefore, cannot be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist to do so. 20. Accordingly, learned appellate Court came to the conclusion that learned trial court had appreciated the prosecution evidence in proper perspective on the basis of settled standards regarding appreciation of evidence. As a result, the impugned judgment of the trial Court as also the conviction and sentence against the appellant came to be upheld. 21. The appellant has questioned the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and the appellant Court on similar grounds, those were raised before the appellate court. It is primarily urged that human tooth cannot be treated as a dangerous weapon and medical officer tendered his opinion without waiting for the opinion of the specialist dental surgeon about the human bite on the ear of the injured. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. While Mr. G.S Thakur, lenared counsel for the appellant has relied upon Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi); AIR 2023 SC 3113 and Khema @ Khem Chandra etc vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; AIR 2022 SC 3765 to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, learned Government Counsel, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, has relied upon Abdul Gani Rather vs. Fayaz Ahmad Khan & Ors; 2022 (2) JKJ 180 to defend the impugned judgment on the predominant premise that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot assume the role of appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence. Learned Government counsel is of the view that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to the 11 CRR No. 14/2014 examination of the impugned order to find out, if it suffers from any illegality or impropriety and does not extend to re-appreciation of the entire material available to the trial magistrate. 24. At the foremost, I have failed to subscribe to the opinion of courts below, particularly the appellate court, that a human tooth is an instrument of cutting and since it serves as a weapon of offence and defence, an injury caused by a tooth bite would amount to an offence under Section 324 or Section 326 of the Penal Code, depending on whether the injury is „simple‟ or „grievous‟. Learned appellate court has relied upon Jamil Hasan vs. State; 1974 Crl. LJ 867 to say so. 25. Various High Courts across the country have taken the view that a human tooth may be described as an instrument of cutting and that causing a tooth bite injury on a delicate part of the body by the accused may fall under Section 324 or 326 of the Penal Code, depending upon the nature of the injury- „simple‟ or „grievous‟. In this context, reference may be made to Jagat Singh vs. State; 1984 Crl. L.J 115, Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan; 1990 WLNUC 59, Hari Chandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2011) 104 AIC 755, Chaurasi Manji. Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1970 Patna 322, Chotta @ Akash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 16.10.2015 and Gopal Bhai Chhaganlal Soni vs. State of Gujarat (1972) 13 Gujlr. 848. 26. Let us have look at Sections 324 and 326 RPC:- 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 12 CRR No. 14/2014 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 27. Sections 324 and 326 of the Penal Code respectively deal with causing „hurt‟ or „grievous hurt‟ by dangerous weapons or means. In view of the text and context in which the word “any instrument” is used in the aforesaid Sections, it cannot be considered a body part. The language employed in the provisions is voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt, “by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence”. A human bite, no doubt is capable to cause „hurt‟ or „grievous hurt‟, as it can severe a body part. However, it is evident from a plain language of the provisions and the context in which the expression “instrument” is employed that a body part cannot be treated as an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or as a weapon of offence. It necessarily refers to an instrument other than a body part. 28. The prosecution case on hand is that the appellant bit the complainant‟s right ear and it got severed. In a similar fact situation, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi; (2004) 10 SCC 103, where the allegation was that the accused bit the index finger and a phalanx was snipped off, held that human teeth cannot be considered a deadly weapon within the meaning of Section 326 IPC and that such an offence would at best fall under Section 325 IPC. The relevant excerpt of the judgment for the ease of reference is given below:- 13 CRR No. 14/2014 “the appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off. But the allegation is that the assailant bit the index finger and caused the said injury. Teeth of a human being cannot be considered a deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Hence, the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.” 29. It is evident from the afore-quoted observation of Hon‟ble Supreme Court that a human tooth does not fall under the definition of a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 324 or 326 of the Penal Code and if grievous hurt is caused by a human bite, the offence would likely fall under Section 325 of the Penal Code. No doubt, the severity of the injury, particularly the chopping of a body part, is a relevant consideration, but the charge must be based on the means used i.e., the teeth, which are a part of the human body and not a deadly weapon per se. Based on the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Shakeel Ahmed, although a human tooth may be described as an instrument or weapon in a broad sense, but it cannot automatically be treated as a deadly weapon within the scope of Sections 324 or 326 of the Penal Code because human tooth being a natural part of the human body, cannot be equated with weapons specifically categorised as a dangerous weapons in law. Therefore, if “hurt” or “grievous hurt” is caused by a human bite, Sections 324 or 326 of the Penal Code would not be attracted and the charge would fall within the limits of “hurt” and “grievous hurt” as envisaged under Section 323 or 325 of the Penal Code. 30. This brings us to the merits of the case that whether prosecution has succeeded in proving, by cogent or reliable evidence, that the appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant by teeth bite within the meaning of Section 325 RPC. 14 CRR No. 14/2014 31. True it is that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia to contain every minute detail of the occurrence. However, omission of material facts from the FIR or complaint certainly casts a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 32. It may be recalled that the complainant, PW 1, lodged an oral report in the Police Station, alleging that the appellant along with co-accused, Pushap Nath and Nain Shukh nursed a grudge against him due to some land dispute and while he was on his way to meet the Tehsildar, who had come for the demarcation of the land, he was allegedly intercepted and assaulted with fists and blows, due to which he sustained grievous injury on his ear. However, in his report, the complainant nowhere states that the appellant bit his right ear and chopped it off. The complainant admitted in his testimony in the trial court that he has disclosed for the first time that appellant had bitten his right ear and chopped it off. The complainant also stated that PW Makhan Singh is his relative and PW Ashok Kumar is a relative of both the parties. The statement of the complainant that appellant bit his right ear is supported by PW 2 Ashok Kumar, who also stated that both the parties grappled with each other, during which the appellant bit the complainant‟s ear and chopped it off. He also stated that he has been cultivating land of the complainant as a tenant for the past three years. PW S. Makhan Singh, a relative of the complainant also stated that accused persons started beating the complainant and that the appellant bit and chopped his ear off. He further added that the part of the ear could not be traced from the scene of occurrence. PW 4 Mohinder Nath, Tehsildar, is another witness who has supported the complainant‟s version that in the scuffle between the parties, the appellant bit the complainant‟s ear and it got severed. However, it is pertinent to note that PWs 2 and 3, who are related to the complainant and 15 CRR No. 14/2014 even the independent witness PW 4 Mohinder Nath, Tehsildar, have not stated whether it was right ear or the left ear of the complainant that was bitten and it got severed. PW -5 Surinder Singh, a revenue official, has stated that he saw blood flowing from the ear of the complainant and that complainant told him that appellant had bitten his ear. He did not say whether complainant‟s ear was snipped off or not, nor did he mention whether it was the right ear or the left ear. PW-6 Mukesh Kumar, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant, stated that he saw the complainant in the Police Station in a pool of blood and that his shirt was blood-stained. Like PW Surinder Singh, PW Mukesh Kumar also did not state that complainant‟s ear was severed from his body, nor did he mention whether it was the right ear or the left ear. 33. In view of the afore-noted discrepant versions of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the medical officer, Dr. Jeet Raj, assumes significance. In his testimony dated 06.05.2005, he affirmed the medical certificate issued by him, which recorded that the outer margin of the left pinna of the complainant was chopped off and that he was referred to a dental surgeon to verify whether it was a human bite or otherwise. Pertinently, in cross- examination by the defence, the doctor maintained that injury was caused on the outer margin of the left pinna and not on the right. 34. The medical officer, PW Dr. Jeet Raj was later recalled for re- examination at the instance of the prosecution. In his re-examination dated 25.05.2008 i.e. more than three years after his earlier statement, the doctor identified the complainant-injured in the court and stated that the injury was actually on the right ear, which could be seen with the naked eye. In this statement, the medical expert clarified that the certificate EXPW-JR issued by him was not correct with respect to the left ear. It is pertinent to mention that the 16 CRR No. 14/2014 medical officer i.e. Dr. Jeet Raj, spoke about the injury on the right ear of the complainant-injured when he saw the injury with his naked eyes in the court and not on the basis of the certificate issued earlier by him. 35. Another staggering circumstance which goes against the prosecution and needs attention is that PW Dr. Jeet Raj, who examined the injured, had referred him to the dental surgeon to verify whether it was a human bite or otherwise. However, he issued the medical certificate EXPW-JR without obtaining the expert opinion or report of the dental surgeon. PW Dr. Jeet Raj has admitted in his cross-examination that in the case of a human bite, there may be marks of lower front teeth and upper front teeth with depiction of the actual size of the teeth. In view of contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution case, the absence of expert opinion from the dental surgeon shrouds the entire prosecution case in doubt. 36. Be it noted also that it is not only the medical officer, PW Dr. Jeet Raj, who has certified that complainant suffered injury on his left ear but the injury form submitted by the investigating agency to the medical officer for examination of the injured also mentions about the injury on the left ear of the complainant. It appears that the medical certificate, EXPW-JR, issued by PW Dr. Jeet Raj is based on the injury form submitted by the investigating agency without actual examination of the injury, because both the injury form and the medical certificate, EXPW-JR prepared by the investigating agency and issued by PW Dr. Jeet Raj refer to injury on the left ear, which contradicts the complainant‟s version that appellant bit his right ear and snipped it off. 37. True it is that in case of conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence, it is the ocular evidence which gets better off. However, in the present case, there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the 17 CRR No. 14/2014 prosecution witnesses and failure on the part of the doctor who examined the complainant-injured to wait for the expert opinion before issuing the medical certificate, EXPW-JR, cannot be ignored. 38. The investigating officer, PW Bui Dass, has also admitted in his statement before the trial court that the FIR simply mentioned that the complainant had suffered injury on his ear but the name of the accused who inflicted that injury was not disclosed in the FIR. The investigating officer further admitted that the FIR also did not mention the fact that a particular ear of the complainant was chopped off by a particular accused by a human bite. The complainant merely narrated in the FIR that the accused assaulted him with fists and blows, which caused injuries all over his body and a grievous injury on the ear. 39. It goes without saying that an FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia containing all the minute details of the occurrence. However, material details of the occurrence are required to be mentioned in the FIR. The omission on the part of the complainant to mention in the FIR that it was the appellant who bit his right ear and chopped it off brings the prosecution case under doubt. These are not minute or minor details omitted by the complainant at the time of making the report to the police. 40. No doubt, related witnesses and interested witnesses are not synonymous, as there may be situations where only a relative of victim is a witness to the occurrence. As such, there is no disqualification in law to rely upon the testimony of such witness, provided it is trustworthy. However, as already discussed, the complainant has failed to mention the material fact in the FIR that the appellant bit his right ear and chopped it off. The statements of the complainant and related witnesses, PWs Ashok Kumar and Makhan Singh, as 18 CRR No. 14/2014 well as the statement of PW Mohinder Nath, Tehsildar, in the circumstances do not inspire confidence. The evidence led by the prosecution is discrepant on material aspects and cannot be made the basis to sustain conviction of the appellant. 41. I am conscious of the legal position that this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, has limited scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the order in question suffers from any illegality or impropriety. The revisional jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciation of the material or re-evaluation of the evidence. The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot assume the role of an appellate court, as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ BP. Singh vs. State of Bihar; AIR 202 SC 2907, relevant excerpt whereof reads as below:- “It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court....it may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court but that by itself is no justification for exercising of revisional jurisdiction....” 42. It is manifest from the above that in cases of concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, would ordinarily not interfere with such findings. However, it is equally trite that if this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, finds that the courts below have misread the evidence, resulting in a finding that is manifestly perverse and vitiated by an error of law, then this Court is well within its jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. 43. An objective and dispassionate perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that both the courts below, the trial court and the appellate court, have failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in correct perspective and the 19 CRR No. 14/2014 findings recorded are manifestly erroneous, which calls for interference by this Court. 44. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set-aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge and stands relieved of his bail bonds. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge JAMMU 23.07.2025 Abinash Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes