Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003 (O&M) Decided on : October 13, 2010 Kaka Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Kaka Singh – accused/ petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') while driving the truck bearing Reg.No.PB-04-2956 rashly and negligently struck against the closed railway gate No.1-A, killing one person and injuring two others. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, under Sections 279 & 338 IPC, vide judgment dated 30.1.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.10.2003 dismissed the appeal. In nutshell, the facts are that on 26.11.1998 at about 9.40 PM, Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [2] an information was received by the police of GRP, Bathinda from S.S.Railway Station, Bathinda that the accused had broken the railway gate No.1-A by striking his truck bearing Reg.No.PB-04-2956, on the basis of which the instant case was registered. Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh along with other police officials reached the spot and found that due to negligence of the accused, two scooter riders and one motor cycle rider had suffered injuries. They were shifted to the Hospital. He took into possession the offending truck, while the accused had already fled away. He also took into possession the scooters and the motor cycle; he further came to know that Ranjit Singh, one of the injured, had succumbed to the injuries after reaching the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, while other injured Shanker and Harnek Singh had survived. On completion of the entire process, the accused was challaned. He was charged for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the allegations examined Suraj Bhan, eye witness of the present case as PW1; Harnek Singh – injured (PW2); Head Constable Abhey Singh (PW3); Dr.Maninder Pal Singh (PW4); Jaswinder Singh Junior Engineer (PW5); Jarnail Singh photographer (PW6); Dr.Rajinder Kumar Garg (PW7); Shanker Singh – injured (PW8); Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh (PW9), Investigating Officer of the case; Mool Chand Sharma, Retd./ Deputy Station Supervisor (PW10) and Jagjit Singh Brar, Deputy Station Supervisor (PW11). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case at the Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [3] instance of Harnek Singh, Shanker and Ranjit Singh in connivance with the railway employees. In defence, he has proved the copy of the award (Ex.DC) passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. Dr.Maninder Pal Singh (PW4), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Singh on 27.11.1998 has proved the same as Ex.PD. Dr.Rajinder Kumar Garg (PW7), who had conducted the medico legal examination of Harnek Singh on 26.11.1998 proved his medico legal report Ex.PF and MLR of Shanker as Ex.PG. In order to prove the occurrence, the prosecution examined Suraj Bhan (PW1), Harnek Singh (PW2) and Shanker (PW8). They have consistently stated that the accused while driving the offending truck rashly and negligently struck against the Railway Phatak, resulting into injuries to Harnek Singh, Shanker and Ranjit Singh. Harnek Singh and Shanker being the injured persons, would be the last persons to falsely implicate him, leaving the original culprit, particularly when they have no enimity against him. Suraj Bhan, the in-charge of the Railway Phatak has established the identity of the accused as he has stated that with the help of the other persons gathered at the spot, he had taken control of the accused, but taking undue benefit of the crowd, he fled away. Counsel for the accused has stated that statement of Suraj Bhan (PW1) was not recorded on the day of the accident i.e. on 26.11.1998, but the same is not factually correct. The statement of this witness under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on the same day, wherein, he also gave the name of the accused. In any case, the identity of the accused has been duly Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [4] proved by Shanker and Harnek Singh, who have categorically stated that it was the accused, who was driving the offending truck at the relevant time. The owner of the truck has also not denied if the accused was not driving the truck on the day of occurrence. Without delving deep further to appreciate the evidence, it would be sufficient to say that both the courts below have consistently observed about the rashness and negligence of the accused, which was the sine qua non to prove the offence. No re-appreciation of evidence is required at revisional stage in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, wherein, their Lordships observed 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 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.” Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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. 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 one person had lost his life and two suffered injuries, therefore, keeping in Criminal Revision No.2252 of 2003(O&M) [6] view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears to be already on the lesser side. Hence, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda for compliance. October 13, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE