Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : November 02, 2010 Tarsem Lal ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Atul Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Tarsem Lal, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.8.2005 passed by the-then Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 16.10.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 304-A IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The version of the prosecution is that on 17.3.1999, Sohan Singh along with Bhajan Singh on one scooter and Jasbir Kaur wife of Sohan Singh along with Jaswant Kaur on the other scooter bearing Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [2] Reg.No.PB-08-2398 left village Bhatha Gate Wala and proceeded towards Jalandhar. When they reached near bye-pass, Sultanpur Lodhi, old octroi post, at about 6.15 PM, a tractor-trolley bearing Reg.No.PB-09-5485 being driven by a Hindu gentleman in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jalandhar and it hit the scooter, being driven by Jasbir Kaur. The scooter got entangled in the front portion of the offending tractor and the tractor went out of control, as a result of which both the riders of the scooter, namely Jasbir Kaur and Jaswant Kaur fell down on the road and became unconscious. The name of the driver of the offending tractor was known as Tarsem Lal son of Faiz Masih r/o village Lakhan Kalan, Police Station Sadar, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. However, he fled from the scene of accident, leaving the tractor there. Both the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, where the doctor declared them as `brought dead'. On the aforesaid statement made by Sohan Singh, the First Information Report was lodged; inquest reports on the dead bodies were prepared; the scooter and the tractor-trolley were taken into possession; statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted in the Court against the accused. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Sohan Singh – complainant (PW1), Bhajan Singh (PW2), Vishal Soni Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [3] (PW3), Constable Gurmej Singh (PW4), Dr.Raj Kumar (PW5), Jagmohan Singh (PW6), Mohan Lal (PW7) and Constable Gurnam Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the Trial Court, no exception could be made to the view expressed by both the courts below. Sohan Singh (PW1) is the eye- witness, who has fully authenticated his version as recorded in the First Information Report. He has given a natural eye-witness version, while deposing in the Court that on 17.3.1999 at about 6.00 PM, he along with his wife Jasbir Kaur had come to see Jaswant Kaur. In the evening, they had started for their villages on scooters. He was coming along with Bhajan Singh, who was sitting on the pillion seat, while Jasbir Kaur and Jaswant Kaur were riding another scooter. When they reached near bye-pass Sultanpur road near old octroi, the accused while driving the tractor rashly and negligently struck against the scooter of the ladies, as a result of which both of them fell on the road and later declared by the doctor as `brought dead'. This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing such was elicited from such a lengthy cross-examination which could be helpful to the case of the accused. Another eye witness, namely, Bhajan Singh (PW2), though has resiled, but has supported the prosecution case on some natural aspects. He stated that the accident in question took place one year back Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [4] and he was sitting on the pillion seat of a scooter and on another scooter two ladies were sitting. Further, though, this witness stated that no accident took place in his presence, yet it is clear from the scrutiny of his entire testimony that he had admitted the driving of the scooters by Sohan Singh as well as Jasbir Kaur, respectively, on the day of occurrence. Needless to state that it is settled principle of law that humans can tell lie, but not the circumstances. There are photographs Ex.P1 to P5 and the negatives Ex.P6 to P10, which clearly depict the picture of the accidental scene, which reveal that the offending tractor after striking into the scooter dragged Jasbir Kaur and Jaswant Kaur to a considerable distance. The photographs also show that scooter was being driven on the correct side, whereas, the petitioner brought the offending tractor on the wrong side of the road. So the evidence on the record speak to the volumes about the negligence of accused. The question of mistaken identity does not arise. The deceased were followed by the witnesses and he had the opportunity and occasion to see the petitioner. More so, no such animus or enmity of the petitioner has been alleged against the witness, so as to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case. A valuable life has been lost within twinkling of an eye, therefore, in such circumstances, no person would replace the original culprit by an innocent person. Moreover, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the evidence so meticulously at this revisional stage as the interference at this stage could be made only in such cases, where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [5] 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 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. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, held that the revisional Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [6] 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. 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 findings of guilt recorded by the courts below deserve to be upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, two valuable lives had been lost and the property was also damaged due to the rashness and negligence of the accused - petitioner, for which the sentence awarded by the Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Dismissed. Criminal Revision No.1602 of 2005(O&M) [7] November 02, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE