Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : October 11, 2010 Sukhdev Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Tajinder Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Vide its judgment dated 25.09.2002, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Sukhdev Singh - accused / petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year 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 under Section 279 IPC. His appeal also failed. In brief, the prosecution version is that 14.8.1994, Bakhtaur Singh – complainant along with 10/11 persons of his village (Takhanbadh) was going to Hemkunth Sahib in Matador bearing Reg.No.MP-09S-0676, driven by Surinder Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh. The complainant was sitting on the mid seat of the matador. At about 7.00 AM, when they reached near a Dhaba situated near village Aligarh in Jagraon, the accused suddenly Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [2] drove back the truck bearing Reg.No.HR-32-2849, already parked at the Dhaba towards the road, resultantly, it struck into the running Matador killing Natha Singh and Harbans Singh, occupants of the matador at the spot, while few other received multiple injuries. The complainant also suffered injuries on his right shoulder. The accused tried to flee away, but the persons present at the Dhaba apprehended him, to whom he disclosed his identity. Later on, injured Pritam Singh and Surinder Singh, who had been admitted in CMC Ludhiana also succumbed to the injuries on 14.8.1994. Since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the accused, therefore, on the aforesaid statement of the complainant, First Information Report was registered; the accused was arrested and statements of the witnesses were recorded. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the accused, he was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304- A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In an endeavour to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. However, the Court closed the evidence by order. 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 innocence. However, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The contention of the counsel for the accused is two fold; firstly, that there is delay in lodging the FIR, and secondly, that the identity of the accused as a driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved. Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [3] So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the accident had taken place on 14.8.1994 at about 7.00 AM and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 12.00 Noon. In other words, the First Information Report was registered within five hours of the accident, which in no way can be taken as fatal to the prosecution case, as the first and foremost consideration of the persons at the spot was to shift the dead bodies to the hospital and to provide medical aid to the injured, which was done. ASI Mohinder Singh (PW1), while appearing in the witness box has stated that after receiving a wireless message, he visited to Civil Hospital, Jagraon and recorded the statement of the injured Bakhtaur Singh. As such, while counting the time consumed in sending the ruqa, visit of ASI in the hospital seeking opinion regarding fitness of the injured in making the statement, it appears that the FIR was recorded without wasting any time. Therefore, the prosecution has well-explained the interregnum period, which lapsed between the information received and the lodging of the FIR. Now, coming to the question of identity of the accused, the complainant Bakhtaur Sigh (PW1), Mukhtiar Singh (PW2) and Gurmit Singh (PW3) have very categorically stated that they had mentioned Sukhdev Singh as name of the driver of the offending truck. More so, the name of the accused also figures in the First Information Report, lodged on the basis of the first version given by the complainant. Thus, this plea is also devoid of any merit. Moreover, in case of road accidents, none other than the occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident, could be better witnesses. The injured persons would be the last persons to frame another person than the real culprit, particularly, in such a case like the present one, where the accused even has not alleged any enmity against any of the Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [4] witnesses. On scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses cannot be doubted. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular version. 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 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 Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [5] 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 accused concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that four persons had lost their lives and many suffered injuries, therefore, keeping in 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. Criminal Revision No.2072 of 2004(O&M) [6] Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance. October 11, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE