Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : November 11, 2010 Avtar Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioner Avtar Singh (herein referred as `petitioner') through the instant petition has challenged the judgment dated 14.7.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 3.9.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The prosecution version is that on 4.8.1997 at about 8.45 AM, Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [2] Sohan Lal, who was employed in the office of Kandi Canal, Mukerian as `defadar', was going by foot to his office. As soon as he approached the metalled road from Talwara turning, Mukerian, the petitioner while driving the bus bearing Reg.No.PB-07B-5679 rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed, without blowing horn, came from the side of Bus Stop, Mukerian and suddenly took a turn towards Talwara side, consequently, the left side of the bus hit against Sohan Lal and the left rear tyres ran over him, as a result of which he died at the spot. The bus was besieged by the public at the spot, however, the petitioner as well as the conductor of the bus fled from the scene leaving the bus at the spot. A case was registered. On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Court. The Trial Court charged the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined Sewa Dass – complainant (PW1), Ram Dass (PW2), Dr.Naresh Kansra (PW3), Sukhdev Singh (PW4), Sub Inspector Karnail Singh (PW5) and HC Sohan Singh (PW6). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself. However, the trial ended in conviction and the appeal also failed. In the present case, the identity of the driver of the offending bus is not in dispute, rather the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was not at fault and the unfortunate incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself. Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [3] Heard, Sewa Dass (PW1) and Ram Dass (PW2) are the eye- witnesses and they both have consistently deposed that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner resulting into injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. Despite lengthy cross-examination over these witnesses, nothing substantial could be elicited, so as to impeach the credit of their testimonies. As per the eye- witnesses account, the deceased was on the edge and was still to approach the road, while the petitioner drove his bus at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took turn resulting into hitting of the deceased, consequently, he ran the bus over him. Further, the registration of the FIR within 1½ hours of the accident in question also strengthens the case of the prosecution. Both the courts below have taken the consistent view that it was the accused/petitioner, who while driving the bus rashly and negligently struck against the bicycles of the deceased and two others. Nothing material could be argued, which may impel this court to differ with the findings of fact, returned by both the courts below. Even otherwise, it is well-settled that the interference in the revision petition could be made only if the impugned 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. Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [4] 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 in a question of fact which depends for its determination on an 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 revisional 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 Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [5] 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 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. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand point, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by re- appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [6] in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail Bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence.” 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. Faced with the above, the counsel for the petitioner has sought some leniency in the quantum of sentence keeping in view the longevity of the pendency of the revision. The accident in question took place in the year 1997. The petitioner has been suffering a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last more than thirteen years. These facts and circumstances could Criminal Revision No.2100 of 2004(O&M) [7] be treated as mitigating for reduction of sentence. As such, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to ten months under Section 304-A IPC, without altering the other sentences. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE November 11, 2010 `gian'