SUNIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for revision petitioner and Public Prosecutor. Copies of the depositions of witnesses and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution (marked in evidence) are made available for perusal.

(2.) Concurrent findings on facts recorded by the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence ie., the revision petitioner committed the offences punishable under S.448, 354 and 506(ii) IPC, are sought to be challenged invoking the powers of this Court under S.401 CrPC.

(3.) Now the well settled position of law is that revisional court is loath to interfere with the concurrent findings on facts recorded by the courts below unless glaring features which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of the Court. So, the question that is to be considered in this revision is whether the revision petitioner has been able to bring to my notice any glaring feature which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.