IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 187 of 2002. Judgment reserved on : 1.4.2009. Date of decision: April 10, 2009. Thukan Sharing …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner having been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below has come in revision against judgment dated 9.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal (RBT) No. 18 of 2000 affirming judgment dated 23.5.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una in Criminal case No. 79-I-1997 convicting petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A, 201 IPC and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes imprisonment for 1 ½ months , simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. It was also directed that if the fine is paid, the same be given to Jagtar Singh father of the deceased as compensation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.11.1996 PW-3 Smt. Mahinder Kaur made a statement Ex.PW-3/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that her house is situated at village Dangoli on the side of the road. At about 3.00 p.m. jeep No. HP-02-8074 came from Una side at a fast speed and struck Jagwinder Singh aged 13 years who was standing on the left side of the road as a result of which Jagwinder Singh fell down on the road and he received injuries on his head and blood started oozing out. She lateron came to know that the driver of Jeep No.HP-02-8074 was Thukan. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Jeep driver. The driver sped away the Jeep from the spot towards Jogi Panga. The injured Jagwinder Singh lateron died in the hospital. On this, FIR Ex.PW-9/B came to be registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A and 201 IPC, notice of accusation was put to petitioner accordingly. He denied the accusation. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of the accusation and placed some documents on record. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal, hence this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate has submitted that the two Courts below have misconstrued, mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence on record and have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioner and petitioner is entitled to acquittal on the basis of material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, this Court in revision will not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere in the conviction and sentence recorded by the two Courts below. 4. Ex.PW-3/A is the statement of PW-3 Smt. Mahinder Kaur recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that Jagwinder Singh was standing on the side of the road and he was hit by the jeep. He fell down and blood started oozing out from his head. Lateron, she came to know that the name of the driver Thukan of Jeep No.HP-02-8074. She has stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. She has also stated that jeep driver sped away the jeep from the spot towards Jogi Panga. Ex.PW-9/C is the site plan showing point ‘A’ where accident took place. It is clear from site plan that point ‘A’ is outside the main road. PW-3 has stated that jeep came from Una side and thus the jeep was proceeding towards direction ‘XY’ shown in site plan Ex.PW-9/C. PW-3 in her statement in the Court has supported the prosecution case. In her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the petitioner, she has denied that deceased tried to cross the road all of a sudden and in that process, he struck against the jeep. She has also denied that after the accident jeep stopped on the spot. 5. PW-4 Jagtar Singh is the father of the deceased. He has also supported the prosecution case. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, he denied that he reached the spot after the accident. PW-5 Sada Nand has stated that about three years ago in the month of November son of Jagtar Singh was standing outside the road, a maruti vehicle came from Una side and hit the boy. The boy was taken to hospital where he died. The vehicle after causing accident sped away from the spot and was chased on motor cycle. In cross-examination conducted by the prosecution, he has stated that he does not understand the difference between jeep and maruti. The motorcyclist brought back the jeep and his driver, who is present in the Court. 6. PW-6 Kadak Dorje has stated that vehicle HP-02-8074 is owned by his brother and accused was driver on this vehicle in the year, 1996. On 9.11.1996 they were going from Una to Hamirpur and accused was driving the vehicle. On the way, a boy struck against the jeep which was stopped, many persons gathered there. They tried to apprehend the accused who left the place and ran away and was apprehended by motorcyclist. In the cross-examination conducted by defence, he has stated that boy struck against the side of the window of the jeep. PW-7 Sarup Lal has proved mechanical report Ex.PW-7/A of the jeep and has stated that there was no mechanical defect in the jeep. 7. PW-8 Om Parkash has stated that he is running a furniture shop on the side of the road at village Dangoli. He was on his shop at about 3.00 p.m. on 9.11.1996, a red colour jeep bearing No. HP-02-8074 came from Una side and hit Jagwinder Singh who was standing on the side of the road. The jeep after hitting Jagwinder sped away from the spot. Jagwinder Singh sustained injuries and became unconscious. A man came from behind on motor-cycle who chased the jeep and thereafter brought the jeep back. The accident took place due to the negligence of the accused present in the Court. The boy died lateron. PW-9 Bachiter Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW-10 Amar Singh has also investigated the case partly. 8. PW-13 Narinder Pal has stated that on 9.11.1996 he was going from Gugland to Chandigarh on motorcycle, his friend Surjit Singh was accompanying him. They stopped at Dangoli. Surjit Singh wanted to meet his sister. At about 3.00 p.m. a red colour jeep came from Una side and hit a boy who was standing on the side of the road and sped away from the spot. He chased the jeep for about 10 – 15 km. and stopped it. The registration number of the jeep was HP-02-8074. The driver disclosed his name Tukan. He brought back the jeep and the driver. Jeep hit the boy when it was being driven in high speed. PW-1 Dr. V.K. Raizada conducted post-mortem on the body of Jagwinder and proved post mortem report Ex.PW-1/A. 9. PW-3 Smt. Mahinder Kaur, complainant is an eye witness and she has fully supported the prosecution. PW-4 Jagtar Singh father of the deceased Jagwinder Singh has also supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Sada Nand has also stated that son of Jagtar Singh was standing on the side of the road and a red colour maruti vehicle came in high speed and struck against the boy. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution case is that jeep struck against the boy whereas PW-5 Sada Nand has stated that red colour maruti struck against the boy. There is a difference between maruti vehicle and jeep. The petitioner cannot take benefit of this minor discrepancy inasmuch as PW-5 has stated that he is an illiterate person and he does not know the difference between jeep and maruti. It has come on record that jeep was of red colour and PW-5 Sada Nand has also stated that a red colour maruti came and struck against the boy. 10. All material prosecution witnesses have stated that jeep driver after hitting Jagwinder sped away from the spot and he was intercepted lateron by a person who came on motorcycle. PW-13 Narinder Pal has stated that on 9.11.1996 when he was standing at Dangoli a jeep struck against a boy who was standing on the side of the road and sped away from the spot. He has stated that he chased the jeep for about 10 -15 kms. and thereafter, brought the driver and the jeep back on the spot. PW-6 Kadak Dorje has stated that vehicle No.HP-02- 8074 was owned by his brother and in the year, 1996 the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 11. The prosecution witnesses have stated that Jagwinder was standing on the side of the road. It has not been explained by the accused under what circumstances, he came outside the main road after leaving the main road. The petitioner ran away from the place of accident which indicates that he was guilty otherwise, there was no necessity for him to run away from the place of occurrence. He took false defence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when it was pointed to him that he ran away from the place of accident. The eye witnesses of the accident have said that accused ran away from the place of accident. 12. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out what material evidence has been mis-construed and misinterpreted by the two Courts below. The evidence cannot be re- appreciated, in State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others, AIR 1993 S.C. 1126, it has been held that ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by reappreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. 13. No other point was urged. 14. The result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision which is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed. His bail bonds are cancelled. April 10, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.