Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : November 17, 2010 Darshan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 16.2.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dismissing the appeal of Darshan Singh – accused/petitioner (herein referred as `petitioner') against the judgment dated 15.12.2000 passed by the Trial Court vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated, the allegations as unfolded by Gurmail Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of village Kheta Singh Basti, Bathinda are that on 11.10.1998, he had gone to Dr.Darshan Singh, Sivian Road for Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [2] getting himself treated for temperature. When he came from the said clinic after getting the medicine, his maternal uncle Gurdeep Singh, who was coming on a bicycle met him. When they were talking, at about 7.00 AM, his material uncle's son Gurtej Singh came there on his scooter bearing Reg.No.PB-03D-2550 for supplying milk. He had just stopped his scooter outside the clinic of doctor. In the meantime, a mini bus bearing Reg.No.PB-03E-9150 came from the side of village Sivian being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner and he hit straight in the scooter of Gurtej Singh and run over him, as a result of which Gurtej Singh died at the spot and the scooter was also damaged. On the aforesaid allegations, the case was investigated and the petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Ultimately, the trial ended into conviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. The case of the prosecution banks upon the testimonies of Constable Abhey Singh mechanic (PW1), the complainant Gurmail Singh (PW2), Gurdeep Singh (PW3), Constable Ranjit Singh (PW4), Des Raj, Junior Assistant (PW5), Dr.Satpal Garg, Emergency Medical Officer (PW6), Satpal, Clerk (PW7) and Sukhmander Singh photographer (PW8). The complainant Gurmail Singh (PW2) and Gurdeep Singh (PW3) are the eye witnesses of the accident and they have consistently stated about sequence of events in which the occurrence took place. They have also stated about the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the petitioner. They have also duly proved the identity of the petitioner. Dr.Satpal Garg (PW6) had conducted the post mortem examination on the Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [3] body of the deceased. Constable Abhey Singh and Constable Ranjit Singh (PW4) are the mechanics, who mechanically tested the bus and the scooter, respectively and proved their reports Ex.PA and PW4/A, respectively. One more important witness, namely Sukhmander Singh (PW8) is the photographer, who has proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P11 and the negatives Ex.P12 to Ex.P20. In other words, the cumulative reading of the evidence on record leaves no room of doubt that Gurtej Singh lost his life due to rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner. Both the courts below have taken the consistent view that it was the petitioner, who while driving the mini bus rashly and negligently struck against the scooter of Gurtej Singh (since deceased). Nothing material could be argued, which may impress this court to differ with the findings of fact, returned by both the courts below. The justification for interference at this revisional stage by this Court is very restricted and limited. The interference 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. Further, on the issue, it held as under:- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [4] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [5] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.552 of 2004(O&M) [6] confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail Bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence.” 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 young man had lost his life, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegtions and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears tobe 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. November 17, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) gian JUDGE