Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : December 17, 2010 Karan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Takkar, Additional Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioner Karan Singh (herein referred as `petitioner'), through the instant petition, has challenged the judgment dated 29.7.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Trial Court at Narnaul convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 279 and 337 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months, on each count U/s 338 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months U/s 304-A IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- In brief, the facts are that on 18.10.1997 at about 5.00 PM, Ishwar Singh along with his brother in law, namely Raju and Sunder were Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] going from Narnaul to Tota Heri. Ishwar and Raju were on motor-cycle bearing Reg.No.HRP-6937, while Sukhbir and Sunder were going by scooter. When they reached near Saini Dharam Kanta, a truck bearing Reg.No.HR-26-3942 being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of Ishwar, as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. The other occupant of the motorcycle, namely Raju was got admitted in the Hospital. The petitioner, who had stopped the offending truck after the accident, escaped from the spot. On the aforesaid statement made by Sukhbir, case FIR (Ex.PW8/B), a case was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court charged the petitioner accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined eight witnesses in all, namely; Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW1), complainant Sukhbir Singh (PW2), Dr.Ranbir Singh (PW3), Ramesh Kumar photographer (PW4), Sunder Singh (PW5), Dr.Hazari lal (PW6), Chhatar Singh (PW7) and Beer Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial resulted into 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 18.10.1997, the petitioner while driving the offending truck rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of Ishwar, as a result of which he died at Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] the spot, while the pillion rider, namely Raju suffered multiple injuries. In this regard, the Courts below have relied upon the testimonies of eye witnesses, namely; Sukhbir, the complainant (PW2) and Sunder Singh (PW5). Both of them are consistent in their statements with regard to the time, place and the manner of the accident. Moreover, their ocular version finds corroboration from the medical evidence given by Dr.Hazari lal (PW6). So far as the question of mistaken identity is concerned, Ishwar Singh's (deceased) motor cycle was being followed by the complainant (PW2) and Sunder (PW5), who had the opportunity and occasion to see the petitioner, as he after alighting from the truck came at the spot. Both the witnesses have consistently stated that the petitioner was on the steering wheel at the relevant time. The petitioner has not alleged any previous enmity with the witnesses for naming him falsely in the case. One valuable life had been lost within twinkling of an eye and in such circumstances, no person would replace the original culprit with an innocent person. As such, the identity of the petitioner stands proved beyond doubt. 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 Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.1414 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] 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 findings recorded by the courts below. 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 person had lost his life and one suffered multiple injuries, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, also does not call for any interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul for compliance. December 17, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE