Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : November 18, 2010 Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vikram Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by the first Appellate Court dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira convicting and sentencing the accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- u/s 337; rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- u/s 279; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to an unfortunate accident, wherein, one young Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [2] man lost his life and the other suffered multiple injuries. Factual matrix of the case is that on 3.8.1999 complainant Inderpal Singh along with Naib Singh and Gursewak Singh had gone to Balwinder Singh of village Manjhwala in a Tata Sumo owned by Naib Singh. Karam Singh, nephew of the complainant along with his friend Happy had also come there on a scooter bearing Reg.No.PB-04A/4763 belonging to Happy. After staying for two hours at village Manjhwala, all of them including the complainant left for Moga. At that time, Karam Singh was driving the scooter, whereas, Happy was sitting on the pillion. The complainant, Naib Singh and Gursewak Singh were travelling in the Tata Sumo, being driven by the complainant and they were following the scooter driven by Karam Singh. At about 11.50 AM, when Karam Singh reached in front of the Gurudwara of village Lehra Bet, the petitioner while driving a jeep bearing Reg.No.PCR-3865 rashly and negligently came from opposite direction i.e. from the side of Moga. On seeing the jeep, Karam Singh took the scooter on the katcha berm on the left side of the road, yet the petitioner could not control the jeep and struck it against the scooter, as a result of which Karam Singh and Happy sustained injuries. The complainant identified the petitioner as he was already known to him on account of his frequent visits at Moga in connection with business of jeeps. After staying some time, the accused fled away. Karam Singh died at the spot, while injured was sent to Moga for medical treatment. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon, the investigation commenced. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner was charged for the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [3] offences, but he denied as incorrect and opted to contest. The prosecution to substantiate its version, examined the complainant Inderpal Singh (PW1), Harpreet Singh (PW2), Naib Singh (PW3), Dr.Jaswant Singh (PW4), Dr.Vijay Kumar Goel (PW5), ASI Gurbhej Singh (PW6), Ashok Kumar mechanic (PW7) and Hari Om photographer (PW8). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. In the present case, the star witness is the complainant Inderpal Singh (PW1), who reiterated all the facts leading to occurrence. He has categorically stated that after staying in the house of Balwinder Singh they were coming back to their village. He along with Gursewak Singh and Naib Singh was travelling in the vehicle make Tata Sumo, whereas, Karam Singh deceased and Happy were going on scooter bearing Reg.No.4763. The accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, whereupon, he took his scooter on the left side of the road, however, the accused still struck his jeep against the scooter. He has withstood the test of cross- examination and his testimony stands corroborated by Naib Singh (PW3) and Harpreet Singh (PW2). Though, Harpreet Singh (PW2) could not tell as to who was driving the offending jeep at the time of the accident, yet he may have his own reasons to do so. Any way, since Harpreet Singh was sitting on the pillion, therefore, in all human probabilities, there is every Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [4] possibility that he might not have looked on the front side, however, he is truthful qua other aspects of the case. He states that Karam Singh was driving the scooter at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road when the jeep rammed into it, consequently, he and Karam Singh, who was driving the scooter, suffered injuries. The scrutiny of his testimony also leads this Court to infer that the accused was negligent in driving the jeep. No doubt, it was stated by the complainant (PW1) that the scooter was going on the right side of the road, but it is very much apparent from the cumulative reading of his statement that it was going on the “correct side” of the road. The complainant (PW1) and Naib Singh (PW3) are consistent in their statements and have withstood the test of judicial scrutiny. It is a settled law by now that the interference at the revisional stage could be made very sparingly and in cases where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trial misconducted the proceedings. It has also been observed by the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration , AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. Further, on the issue, it held as under:- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [5] appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment of the evidence, at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the appellant. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Similarly, while discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. 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 Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [6] 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 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 gross miscarriage of justice.” In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) and another , AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the records before me transpire that the occurrence took place as far back as in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered lot of agony of protracted proceedings for the last more than eleven years. No bad antecedents of the petitioners Criminal Revision No.94 of 2004(O&M) [7] have been brought on record by the prosecution in order to dub him as habitual offender. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to six months. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A is reduced to six months, without alteration in the sentence of fine and also without altering the sentences awarded for other offences. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. November 18, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE