1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.77 of 2013 Reserved on: 19.06.2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 Raman Kapoor ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., vide which the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2008 and order of sentence dated 27.08.2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmaur, District at Nahan, were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454, 380/511 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Harshmani Sharma (PW-4), was serving as a Junior Assistant in the Nahan Foundry. He was allotted a room near Lalkothi, Court Road, Nahan. He had gone to discharge his duty on 06.02.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. after locking the rooms and the verandah. He returned at about 3.30 p.m. and found that the door of the verandah was open. The accused was trying to break the lock of the room with the help of an iron rod. The informant apprehended the accused, who revealed his name as Raman Kapoor. The informant called the police to report the incident. An entry (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded in the Police Station. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) and Constable Dalip Kumar were sent to the spot for verification of the information. H.C. Ranjeet Singh recorded the statement of Harshmani (Ex.PW3/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW3/B) was registered. H.C. Ranjeet Singh conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW3/C) and took photographs (Ex.PW3/D to Ex.PW3/L) whose negatives are (Ex.PW3/M to Ex.PW3/P. He seized the lock (Ex.P1) and the broken bolt (ExP-2). These were put in a cloth 3. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘A’. Seal impression (Ex.PW3/Q) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. These were seized vide memo (Ex. PW1/A). The iron rod (Ex.P3) was measured and was found to be 10 inches in length. It was kept in a sealed parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘A’. Seal impression (Ex.PW3/R) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The iron rod was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 511 of I.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. Baldev Singh (PW-1) is an eyewitness. Constable Joginder Singh (PW-2) proved the entry in the daily diary. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) conducted the investigation. Harshmani (PW-4) is the informant. 5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He 4. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) claimed that the informant and the witnesses deposed against him due to old enmity. He is innocent and was falsely implicated. No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the informant was satisfactory and was corroborated by the recovery of the lock, broken bolt, and the testimony of Baldev Singh (PW- 1). The plea taken by the accused regarding the enmity was not believable; therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹ 2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court 5. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The statement of the informant was corroborated by the photographs and the recovery of the material objects. The plea taken by the accused, that a false case was made against him due to enmity, was not believable. Learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused; therefore, the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence from its true perspective. The petitioner was falsely implicated. The informant is an interested person who had made false allegations against the petitioner-accused because of the previous enmity. The place of the incident was crowded. No independent witness was associated by the prosecution. An adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution for withholding the material witnesses. However, the learned Courts below failed to do so; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 6. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) 9. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 10. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The learned Courts below did not appreciate the evidence from its true perspective. The place of the incident was crowded, and many people had gathered on the spot. However, the prosecution did not examine any independent person and relied upon the statements of interested witnesses. There are various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which made the prosecution case highly doubtful; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 11. Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and this Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The prosecution's case was proved by the testimonies of the informant and Baldev Singh. No independent 7. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) person had seen the incident, and the examination of any person who arrived on the spot after the incident would be meaningless; therefore, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207: - “10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself 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. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 8. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) 14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was observed: “13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt 9. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much- advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed at page 169: “12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5) “5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same 10. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. …” 13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) “14. … Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the 11. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” 14. In the above case, also conviction of the accused was recorded, and the High Court set aside [Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke v. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1753] the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views, and that too without any legal basis. 16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205: “16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. 17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is therefore, in the negative.” 17. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The informant Harshmani Sharma (PW4) stated that he had gone to discharge his duties on 6.2.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. after locking the room and the verandah of his house. He returned at about 3.30 p.m. and found the verandah of his house to be open. 12. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) The accused was trying to break the lock of the room with a brick and an iron rod. He apprehended the accused. He identified the accused as Raman Kapoor. He called the police. Baldev Singh also reached the spot. The police came to the spot and recorded his statement. The police seized an iron rod, a broken bolt, and the lock. 19. Harshmani Sharma (PW-4) stated in his cross- examination that the police reached the spot at about 3.30 p.m. There are many houses adjacent to his house. He admitted that his house is located on the Court Road, where the vehicles are parked and the people move. Three-four persons were present on the spot at the time of the arrival of the police. He knew the accused because he was residing in the house of Prem Chand, the uncle of the accused, as a tenant. He denied that there were disputes between the accused and his family members while he was residing as a tenant in the house of Prem Chand. Baldev Singh used to reside with him during the examination. He denied that the accused had not committed any offence, and he was falsely implicated. 20. Baldev Singh (PW-1) stated that Harshmani was known to his father, and he used to reside with him. He reached the house 13. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) of Harshmani on 6.2.2007 at about 3.30 p.m. and found that Harshmani had caught the accused, whose name was found to be Raman Kapur, and who is present in the Court. Harshmani revealed that the accused was trying to enter the room after breaking open the lock. He had already damaged the lock of the verandah. The informant called the police. The police reached the spot and seized the lock, bolt and iron rod. He identified all these articles. 21. Baldev Singh (PW-1) stated in his cross-examination that the police reached the spot at 3.30 p.m. He admitted that many houses are located adjacent to the house of Harshmani. He was residing with Harshmani since January 2007. He volunteered to say that he used to reside with Harshmani whenever he was alone. A main road was located adjacent to the house, where people moved continuously. The vehicles were also parked on the road. When he reached the house at about 3:30 p.m., many people had gathered on the spot. The police were also present. He had not seen any person breaking the lock or the bolt. The police remained on the spot for half an hour. He denied that the accused was apprehended on the spot, and he was making a false statement. 14. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) 22. The statements of these witnesses corroborated each other. It was suggested to Harshmani that he had quarrelled with the accused and his family members when he was residing in the building of Prem Chand as a tenant. However, he denied this suggestion. A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof, and the plea that the accused and informant were inimical to each other cannot be accepted. The accused did not state in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he had a dispute with the informant. He only stated that he had old enmity with the informant and the witnesses; however, the details of enmity were not provided. No defence evidence was led to establish the enmity between him, the informant and the witnesses; therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly rejected the defence taken by the accused that a false case was made against the accused due to enmity with the informant and the witnesses. 23. Constable Joginder Singh (PW-2) stated that the call was received at 3.35 p.m. and the police reached the spot at 3.40 p.m. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW3) stated that information was received at 3.35 p.m. and he left the police post immediately and reached the spot within 15-20 minutes. Harshmani (PW-4) and Baldev Singh (PW-1) stated that the police had reached the spot at 15. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) 3.30 p.m. It was submitted that there is a major contradiction regarding the time of departure of the police party from the police station and their arrival on the spot. This submission will not help the accused. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 2 that no person remembers the time by looking at the watch and usually provides the estimation of the time, which may vary from person to person. Therefore, the discrepancy regarding the time is not material and it does not affect the core of the prosecution's case regarding the apprehension of the accused from the spot. 24. The statement of the informant was duly corroborated by the recovery of the lock, broken bolt and the iron rod. The photographs EX.PW3/D, EX.PW3/H, EX.PW3/J and EX.PW3/M show the broken bolt and the lock lying on the spot. These photographs corroborate the testimonies of the informant and Baldev Singh that the lock was removed by breaking the bolt. 25. It was submitted that many people had gathered on the spot, and police had not examined any independent person. This submission will not help the accused. The witnesses arrived after the arrival of the police or with the police, and they had not witnessed the incident; therefore, no fruitful purpose would have 16. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) been served by examining the witnesses, and the prosecution's case cannot be doubted due to the non-examination of the witnesses. 26. The testimony of the informant proved that the accused had broken the bolt of the verandah and trespassed inside the house. He was attempting to break open the lock of the room. Hence, the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380, read with Section 511 I.P.C., were duly proved on record, and there is no infirmity in the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below. 27. Learned Trial Court had called for the report of the Probation Officer. He reported that many cases were pending against the petitioner-accused, and he could not be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the learned Trial Court had rightly declined to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 28. The offence punishable under Section 454 of the I.P.C. can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years. Learned Trial Court had only imposed a sentence of three months for the commission of the aforesaid offence. Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 380 of the I.P.C. can be punished 17. ( 2025:HHC:21670 ) with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and since in the present case, an attempt was made, therefore, the punishment of 3 ½ years could have been provided as per Section 511 of the IPC. Learned Trial Court imposed simple imprisonment for six months. The offence was committed in broad daylight; hence, the sentence of six months cannot be said to be excessive, and no interference is required with it. 29. No other point was urged. 30. In view of the above, the present revision fails, and the same is dismissed. 31. Record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith, alongwith a copy of this judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 08 July, 2025. (veena)