Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : December 07, 2010 Sher Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.3.2005 passed by the-then Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing the appeal of Sher Singh – accused/ petitioner against the judgment dated 3.8.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity `the IPC'); and to pay fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279 IPC. Ravinder Singh – complainant stated before the police that on 11.2.1997, he along with his brother Jaspinder Singh alias Bhinda was going from the side of Market Committee towards Railway Crossing. Both of them were on the correct side of the road. In the meantime, a truck Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] bearing Reg.No.HIK-4850, being driven by the accused rashly and negligently at a high speed, came from the side of bus stand, without blowing any horn, it struck against Jaspinder Singh and ran over him, as a result of which he died at the spot. The petitioner alighted from the truck and tried to flee away, but the complainant over-powered him and was later handed over to the police. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the First Information Report was registered against the accused; he was arrested; the post mortem on the dead body 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 him was presented in the Court. The trial court, finding a prima facie case against the accused, charged him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in all. Thereafter, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. The present case revolves around the statement of the complainant Ravinder Singh, who while appearing in the witness box as PW7 reiterated his version, as given to the police, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. It is not the sole statement of this witness, which proves the guilt of the accused, but his oral testimony is also supported by circumstantial evidence as also the documentary evidence. The accused Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] was apprehended at the spot and the offending truck was also taken into possession from the spot vide recovery memo Ex.PD. It was the accused, who produced his driving license as also the registration certificate of the offending truck before the police. So far as the submission of the learned counsel that the complainant is none else, but brother of the deceased, therefore, he is an interested witness, does not weigh with the mind of this court, because the accused has not alleged any previous enimity with the complainant or any other member of his family. The complainant party had lost one member of their family within twinkling of an eye and in such circumstances, no person, who has lost his brother in a road accident within his sight, would replace the original culprit with anybody else. The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the deceased. Merely because the eye-witness is relative of the deceased, is hardly sufficient to doubt his veracity, so as to ignore it by declaring him as interested witness. 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 Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.842 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] 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 one valuable life had been lost due to rash and negligent act of the accused, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears to be in commensuration with the offence committed. Hence, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur for compliance. December 07, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE