Criminal Revision No.1400 of 2005(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1400 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : November 12, 2010 Gurbachan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The accused – petitioner Gurbachan Singh (herein referred as `the petitioner') was prosecuted for causing death of three persons and injuring equal number of persons, due to his rash and negligent act, therefore, vide judgment dated dated 4.9.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa he was convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5000/- U/s 338 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- U/s 337 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.4.1995, on receiving a VT message from the Police Station, Sub-Inspector Prem Singh along with other officials reached at General Hospital, Sirsa, where he got Criminal Revision No.1400 of 2005(O&M) [2] recorded the statement of injured Mukesh Kumar, stating that on that day, he along with Shalender, Satbir, Ram Avtar, Anil Dutt, Balram, Prem Sagar, Raj Kumar, Surjit Singh and Chabil Dass all residents of Adampur Mandi had gone in a jeep to attend the marriage of Kamlesh s/o Om Parkash r/o Adampur Mandi. The jeep was being driven by Shalender and they were going towards Adampur from Sherowali. At about 2/2.30 PM, when they reached just short of village Panjuana, then a Eicher Tractor with attached trolley came from the side of Sirsa, being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed and struck the front right side of the trolley against their jeep, as a result of which the jeep turned on the road, causing death of Chabil Dass at the spot, while the other injured were shifted to the Hospital. The driver of the offending tractor fled away from the scene. Later, injured Shalender succumbed to the injured at General Hospital, Sirsa and injured Surjit Singh breathed his last at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi. On the aforesaid statement, the First Information Report (Ex.PW8/B) was registered against the petitioner; he was arrested; the post mortem on the dead bodies was got conducted; site plan of the place of accident was got prepared; the offending tractor-trolley were taken into possession; statements of the witnesses were recorded and on submission of the report under Section 173 CrPC against the petitioner, he was charged under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 IPC, to which he denied as incorrect and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded Criminal Revision No.1400 of 2005(O&M) [3] innocence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The present case revolves around the testimonies of three eye- witnesses, namely; Prem Sagar (PW6), Mukesh Kumar – complainant (PW7) and Satbir Singh (PW11). Prem Sagar, who had also suffered injuries in the accident, while appearing in the witness box has stated that on 15.4.1995, he along with Mukesh, Shalender, Raj Kumar, Chhabil Dass, Satbir, Anil Dutt, Balram and Surjit was coming from Sherowali Ganga Nagar to Adampur, and at about 7.30 PM when they reached near the canal situated near village Panjuana, a tractor Eicher with attached trolley came from the front side, being driven rashly and negligently and struck against their jeep, as a result of which the occupants of the jeep suffered injuries. He further testified that Chhabil Dass had died at the spot, whereas, Shalender died at the Civil Hospital, while Surjit Singh was referred to Hisar. Further more, his testimony is also to the effect that the offending tractor was without any registration number and he had identified the petitioner, who was driving the tractor and had caused the accident. Another injured eye witness, namely Mukesh Kumar, while appearing in the witness box reiterated his version (Ex.PW7/A) as recorded by the police at the initial stage, on the basis of which the instant case was registered. The evidence of the afore-quoted two eye witnesses finds corroboration from the third injured eye-witness, namely Satbir Singh (PW11). Indraj (PW9) authenticated the recovery of the registration certificates of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Ram Swaroop (PW13) is the mechanic, who mechanically examined the offending tractor and the jeep. He proved his reports Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B in respect of these two vehicles, Criminal Revision No.1400 of 2005(O&M) [4] respectively. Dr.R.K.Bishnoi (PW1), Dr.J.K.Bishnoi (PW12), Dr.Rakesh Garg (PW14) have proved that the deceased persons had died due to the injuries suffered in a vehicular accident. The question of mistaken identity also does not arise in the instant case, as he has been identified by three injured eye-witnesses i.e. Prem Sagar (PW6), Mukesh Kumar – complainant (PW7) and Satbir Singh (PW11), who had the opportunity and occasion to see him. More so, the petitioner has not alleged any previous enmity with any of them, so as to think over the issue of false implication. These witnesses had suffered injuries, besides loosing three of their companions 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. Thus, no exception could be made to the view expressed by both the courts below recording concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the accused. 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.1400 of 2005(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.1400 of 2005(O&M) [6] observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is manifest 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 three persons had lost their lives and many suffered injuries, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, already appears to be on the lower side. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa for compliance. November 12, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE