Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 06, 2010 Mahabir Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, DAG, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Mahabir Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') while driving truck bearing Reg.No.HR29-8274 rashly and negligently, and taking the same on the wrong side of the road, struck against another truck bearing Reg.No.HP23-0757, and then struck into a cycle-rickshaw, thereby, killing the rickshaw-puller. Consequently, he was prosecuted and vide judgment dated 4/5.7.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC; and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 10.7.2003. Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [2] On 2.8.1992, Vinod Kumar – complainant was going to take a tyre for his scooter towards village Teora and at abut 1.45 PM, he saw that the accused while driving the truck bearing Reg.No.HR29-8274 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Teora. He firstly, struck his truck with another truck bearing Reg.No.HP23-0757 coming from the side of Shahabad and then, struck into a cycle-rickshaw killing Krishan Kumar, the rickshaw puller, who was resident of village Rattangarh. Thereafter, it was over-turned and fell into ditches. The complainant having witnessed the occurrence reported the matter to the police, upon which the case was registered and investigation commenced. Ultimately, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate its charges, examined Vinod Kumar (complainant), Balak Ram photographer (PW2), ASI Jawala Singh (PW3), Naresh Kumar (PW4), Avtar Singh (PW5), ASI Simru Ram - Investigating Officer (PW6) and Dr.Balbir Bhardwaj (PW7). When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Vinod Kumar – complainant (PW1) having no connections or alliance with the deceased is the best witness to depose about the circumstances, under which the accident took place. His presence at the Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [3] spot could not, in any manner, doubted or discredited. He while appearing in the witness box has duly testified that the accused while driving his truck rashly and negligently, coming on the wrong side of the road, struck against the right side of the other truck and, thereafter, dragged the rickshaw-puller to the ditches, resulting into his death and damaging the rickshaw. The photographs (Ex.P2 to P9) proved by Balak Ram (PW2) clearly indicate that it was the accused, who was rash and negligent. The factum of rashness is further supported by the fact that the truck after colliding with two vehicles fell into the ditches. The mechanical reports (Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B) proved by Avtar Singh (PW5) also show that the accused while on the wheels of the offending truck, coming to the wrong side struck against the right-side of another truck bearing Reg.No.HP23-0757. In this situation, the left side of the truck driven by the accused was to be damaged. The records transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the evidence so meticulously at the revisional stage as the interference at the revisional stage could be made very sparingly and in cases where the 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 Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [4] 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 guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is 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 revision 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 Nath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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 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.” Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 61 (SC) 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. Once again, this view was taken in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2003(O&M) [6] 555. The crux of the discussion is that 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. This court finds no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgments, which self-speak about the negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident. Hence, the finding of guilt recorded by the courts below deserves to be upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, a valuable life has been lost and the property was also damaged due to the rashness and negligence of the accused, for which the sentence awarded by the Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for compliance. September 06, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE