The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upholds the settled principle that revisional courts do not function as appellate courts and may interfere only to correct patent defect, error of law, or jurisdictional error in convictions under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent, providing binding authority within the state and persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.R/97/2015 of SANJEEV KASHYAP Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010062992015 |
| Date of Registration | 20-04-2015 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh, persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court and High Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – IPC (Section 379 r/w 34), Criminal Procedure (Revision under Sections 397/401, CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; it can only be invoked to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or errors of law, not for reappreciation of evidence or a different view on facts already concurrently examined by lower courts. Minor discrepancies or lapses in investigation do not warrant intervention where core prosecution evidence is reliable. The judgment also restates settled law on common intention under Section 34 IPC, holding that joint liability arises where accused act in concert, and presence and participation in the criminal act are proven. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Police found petitioners loading a stolen tyre into their vehicle at night and apprehended them. They were convicted under Section 379/34 IPC by the trial court, which was upheld on appeal. The revision challenged the conviction, alleging discrepancies in evidence, investigation lapses, and improper appreciation of facts. The court found the police testimony credible, discrepancies immaterial, and no error requiring revisional interference. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court, especially regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction and application of Section 34 IPC |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates and applies Supreme Court holdings on the strictly limited nature of revisional jurisdiction—revisional courts cannot act as another appellate forum nor reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity or a grave miscarriage of justice.
- Provides a detailed primer on the application of Section 34 IPC (common intention), synthesising Supreme Court jurisprudence, and applies it to theft cases.
- Explains that minor discrepancies or lapses in investigation do not vitiate otherwise credible prosecution evidence.
- Clarifies that unchallenged portions of witness testimony (i.e., not taken up in cross-examination) cannot later be doubted in arguments or review.
- Reaffirms that absence of independent (non-police) witnesses or lapses in the taking of photographs do not by themselves undermine a prosecution, if official witness testimony is found credible.
- Lawyers may rely on this decision to oppose revisional interference where concurrent factual findings are supported by the evidence and the law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: The court relied on multiple Supreme Court authorities (Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Amit Kapoor, Kishan Rao, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, Bir Singh) to hold that revisional powers under Sections 397/401 CrPC are supervisory, not appellate. Interference is warranted only for patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or glaring errors in law—not for reappreciation of evidence or mere disagreement with concurrent findings.
- Evidence Appreciation and Minor Discrepancies: The judgment incorporates principles from Rajan v. State of Haryana and Pohlu v. State of Haryana, among others, that minor inconsistencies or investigation lapses do not justify discarding core prosecution evidence. Only discrepancies impinging on the core of the prosecution case have significance.
- Unchallenged Testimony: Drawing from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nahar Singh and Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, the court emphasized that testimonies not challenged in cross-examination are deemed accepted and cannot be challenged later.
- Section 34 IPC — Common Intention: The court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 34 IPC, synthesising principles from Jasdeep Singh, Gulab Singh, Jad Bai, and other Supreme Court decisions. It held that liability arises from acting in concert in the commission of an offence, with common intention possibly developing at the scene, requiring evidence of participation rather than necessarily overt acts from each accused.
- Evaluation of Police Testimony and Non-examination of Independent Witness: The court accepted the consistent police testimony, ruling that absence of independent witnesses or lapses like missing photographs do not undermine prosecution where testimony is credible, especially in late-night offences.
- Presumption from Recent Possession: The court noted that immediate possession of stolen property is a factor supporting the conviction for theft.
- Conclusion: The judgment upheld concurrent findings as untainted by any error of law or perversity, refusing revisional interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed courts below did not properly appreciate evidence.
- Pointed to absence of the operating rod for the jack, discrepancies in photography location and timing.
- Highlighted an alleged discrepancy in the daily diary entries, casting doubt on the police presence.
- Submitted that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments: Gulab Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 12 SCC 677 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jad Bai (2023) 6 SCC 552.
Respondent (State):
- Submitted that lower courts considered the petitioner’s submissions and found them untenable.
- Asserted that no error justifying revisional interference was present.
- Prayed for dismissal of the revision.
Factual Background
The police, during late-night patrolling on 19.03.2009 near the IGMC road, intercepted two persons—Sanjeev Kashyap (petitioner) and Vikrant Thakur—loading a tyre into their vehicle (HP-52A-1352), while another person sat in the driver’s seat. Upon apprehension, the accused confessed to removing the tyre from another vehicle (HP-10-1204). Investigation led to their prosecution for theft (Section 379 IPC read with Section 34 IPC). Both the trial court and appellate court convicted and sentenced them to three months’ simple imprisonment and fine. The revision petition challenged these convictions on grounds of evidentiary discrepancies.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 379 IPC (Theft): Ingredients considered were dishonest removal of the property without the owner’s consent.
- Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): The court extensively analysed the scope, holding that joint liability arises for acts done with common intention, emphasising both prior concert and the possibility of common intention arising at the scene.
- Sections 397/401 CrPC (Revisional Jurisdiction): Applied narrowly—only to correct errors patent on record or of law/jurisdiction, not to reanalyze evidence.
- Rules of Evidence: The court referenced rules regarding unchallenged testimony in cross-examination and the limited weight to be given to minor discrepancies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were present; the judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural norms or innovations were instituted by the judgment; all guidance was drawn from existing precedent and statutory law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Settled Supreme Court and High Court law on revisional jurisdiction and Section 34 IPC reaffirmed and applied.