Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 21, 2010 Hakam Ali ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Amicus curiae - Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Two persons, namely; Sukhdev Singh and Shalu Arora died and three others were injured on account of the alleged road accident caused by the accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') on 13.5.1999. Consequently, he was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 28.7.2003 as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- U/s 337 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.300/- U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.400/- The appeal resulted into dismissal, however, sentence awarded against him was reduced to six months under Section 304-A IPC without any further reduction for other offences. Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [2] The version of the prosecution is that on 13.5.1997, Subhash Chander (PW11) in his statement Ex.PW11/A disclosed that he accompanied by his cleaner Devinder Singh (PW10), while carrying passengers and while driving Maxi Cab bearing Reg.No.DL-8CA-2325 was going from Pinjore to Panchkula. At about 7.30 AM, when they reached near Madhumati Marg, a truck bearing Reg.No.PB-11H-2793 being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner came from the opposite side and struck against the taxi. After the accident, the driver of the offending truck fled away from the spot. As a result of the accident, the complainant himself suffered serious injuries along with the other passengers of the Cab. Shalu Arora, one of the passengers succumbed to her injuries at the Command Hospital. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the First Information Report was registered. Later on, another passenger Sukhdev Singh son of Kesar Singh also succumbed to his injuries. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested; the post mortem on the dead bodies was got conducted; site plan was got prepared; the offending truck was taken into possession; statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, the challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, he was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Sohan Singh (PW1), Constable Nafe Singh (PW2), Rajbir Singh (PW3), Dr.N.Goel (PW4), Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar (PW5), Constable Bihari Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [3] Lal (PW6), Surinder (PW7), Sher Singh (PW8), Gulshan Kumar (PW9), Davinder Singh (PW10) and Subhash Chand (PW11). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was dismissed, with modification in the sentence. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the Trial Court, no exception could be made to the view expressed by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact that on 13.5.1999, the complainant (PW11) along with other passengers including Gulshan Kumar (PW9) and Davinder Singh (PW10) was going to Panchkula from Pinjore in vehicle bearing Reg.No.DL-8CA-2325 and when they reached near Madhumati Marg, the petitioner while driving the offending truck (bearing Reg.No.PB-11H-2793) rashly and negligently came and struck against their vehicle, as a result of which Shalu Arora and Sukhdev Singh lost their lives, while other occupants of the cab suffered injuries. The counsel for the petitioner has strongly questioned the identity of petitioner, which argument does not hold water in view of the consistent statements of three eye-witnesses i.e. Gulshan Kumar (PW9), who besides getting himself serious injuries, also lost his daughter Shalu Arora in the accident; Davinder Singh (PW10) and complainant Subhash Chand (PW11). These all three witnesses have deposed in court that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. They had the occasion to see him on the spot and they all have stated unambiguously that he was driving the offending truck at a high Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [4] speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The daughter of Gulshan Kumar (PW9), aged about 12 years had lost her life in the fateful accident within twinkling of an eye and in such circumstances, no person would replace the original culprit with an innocent person. Hence, the identity of the petitioner stands proved beyond doubt. No doubt, the petitioner had fled away, yet the offending truck was taken into possession at the spot. Prior to his fleeing away, the witnesses had sufficient time to see him. The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the deceased and the injured. Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, their veracity cannot be impeached on that ground, unless they had any motive to implicate the petitioner in the case. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very restricted in nature. It was observed in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 as under:- “The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. While the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to justify itself that there was evidence in support of the finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [5] conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the Supreme Court on an appeal under Article 136 refused to interfere.” Four years later, in case State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. Once again, in 1999, in case State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting 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 re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Similar observations were made in case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the order of the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded by the lower court. Criminal Revision No.1992 of 2003(O&M) [6] Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of the petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that two persons had lost their lives and many suffered multiple injuries; the accused has already been extended leniency by the Appellate Court, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, no further leniency could be extended. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula for compliance. September 21, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE