Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 14, 2010 Mangal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Mangal Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.9.2003 passed by Appellate Court (Sessions Judge, Ropar) dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- U/s 338 IPC rigorous imprisonment for Nine months U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months The version of the prosecution is that on 9.8.1997, the complainant Parwinder Singh got his statement (Ex.P13/A) recorded to the Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) [2] effect that on that day, he along with Jarnail Singh had gone to see their sister Harwinder Kaur wife of Darshan Singh resident of village Thauna. On their return, Darshan Singh along with Pavitar Singh and their sister Harvinder Kaur was on a scooter bearing Reg.No.CHG-9111 Bajaj 150. At about 5.30 PM, when they crossed the Railway Crossing of village Ghanauli, the accused while driving truck bearing Reg.No.PB-23-1440 rashly and negligently came from the Ghanauli side and struck against the scooter of Darshan Singh. Consequently, Darshan Singh and Pavitar Singh died on the spot, while Harwinder Kaur received injuries and admitted to Civil Hospital, Ropar. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the First Information Report (Ex.PW8/B) was registered against the petitioner; the accused was arrested; the post mortem on the dead bodies 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 the petitioner was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, he was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined HC Tarlochan Singh (PW1), Jarnail Singh (PW2), Parwinder Singh (PW3), Harvinder Kaur (PW4), Sachdev Sharma (PW5), Dr.Surit Singh (PW6), Dr.B.H.P.Singh (PW7) and Sub-Inspector Gurmit Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) [3] implication. He produced Paramjit Singh (DW1) in his defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. 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. There are concurrent findings of fact that on 9.8.1997 the complainant (PW3) along with Darshan Singh (deceased), Jarnail Singh (PW2), Pavitar Singh (deceased) and Harwinder Kaur (injured – PW4) was going to village Bharatgarh on separate scooters and when they had just passed the Railway Crossing of village Ghanauli, the petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently came on the wrong side and hit the scooter driven by Darshan Singh, as a result of which the scooter fell down and the tyres of the offending Truck passed over Darshan Singh and Pavitar Singh, killing the duo, while Harvinder Kaur was also injured in the accident. The question of mistaken identity does not arise. Darshan Singh's scooter was being followed by the complainant and Jarnail Singh, who had the opportunity and occasion to see the petitioner. More so, the petitioner has not alleged any previous enmity with the complainant party, so as to think over the issue of false implication. The complainant party had lost two male members of their family within twinkling of an eye and in such circumstances, no person would replace the original culprit with an innocent person. Hence, the identity of the petitioner stands proved beyond doubt. Further more, the photographs Ex.P6 to P-10, duly proved by Sachdev Sharma (PW5) also depict that the scooter was on its correct side Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) [4] i.e. the left side of the road. The statement (Ex.PW3/A) was made by Harchand Singh within 45 minutes of the accident, which contains the name of the petitioner and the number of the offending vehicle. Though, the accused had fled away, yet the offending truck was taken into possession at the spot. Prior to his fleeing away, the witnesses had sufficient time to see him. In the instant case, the eye witnesses Jarnail Singh (PW2), Parwinder Singh (PW3) and Harvinder Kaur (PW4) are quite consistent regarding the time, place and the manner in which the accident had taken place. They have consistently stated that the petitioner was on the wheels of the offending truck at the relevant time. The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the deceased and the injured. Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, is hardly sufficient to doubt the veracity of their statements, so as to ignore it by declaring them as interested witnesses. 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.2030 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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 of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was Criminal Revision No.2030 of 2003(O&M) [6] 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 petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that two persons had lost their lives and one suffered multiple injuries, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears to be already on the lower side. Hence, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar for compliance. September 14, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE