Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : November 18, 2010 Jhankar Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Jhankar Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.9.2004 passed by Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge (Ah hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur) dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.700/- U/s 427 IPC rigorous imprisonment for Six months U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for Six months The version as unfolded by the prosecution is that on 23.2.2000 Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [2] at about 11.00 PM, complainant - Constable Jujhar Singh of Police Pots Saila Khurd was on duty along with other police officials, when a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.CH-03-6943 came from the side of Saila Khurd in which two persons were travelling. In the meantime, a truck No.JKQ-2501 loaded with LPG cylinders coming from the side of Garhshankar, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, went on the wrong side and struck against the aforesaid car. The complainant and other police officials rushed to help the occupants of the car. The co-driver of the Car died on the spot, while the driver was shifted to Civil Hospital, Garhshankar. The truck driver – petitioner, who had also suffered head injury, was apprehended at the spot. Later on, the driver of the car also succumbed to the accidental injuries in the Hospital. The names of the deceased were revealed as Puneet Kaur (driver) and Amit Malik (co-driver of the car). The First Information Report was registered against the petitioner; the post mortem on the dead bodies was got conducted; site plan was got prepared; the petitioner was arrested; the offending truck was taken into possession; and statements of the witnesses were recorded. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Dilbagh Singh (PW1), Gurminder Singh (PW2), HC Jaswant Singh (PW3), Machhinderpal motor-mechanic (PW4), Complainant Jujhar Singh (PW5), Sub-Inspector Baldev Singh (PW6), Jai Ram Singh (PW7) and Dr.Gurpal Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [3] Singh Medical officer (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 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. Complainant - Constable Jujhar Singh (PW5) and Constable Dilbagh Singh (PW1) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The complainant reiterated his version, as recorded in the FIR, by deposing in the Court that the petitioner was driving the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. His presence along with other police officials cannot be doubted. He has stated that when the accident took place, the injured car driver was shifted to Civil Hospital by the police officials, but he succumbed to the injuries there. His statement stands corroborated by the other eye-witness Constable Dilbagh Singh (PW1). The manner of occurrence which led to the accident indicating the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner, has duly been established. So far as the identification of the petitioner is concerned, the said question does not arise in the present case. The petitioner has not denied the accident and it is admitted by him that he was arrested at the spot and the truck was also taken in possession by the police. More so, the petitioner has not alleged any previous enmity with the complainant, so as to think over the issue of false implication. The police officials, who were on their official duty had seen two persons loosing their lives within Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [4] 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. The injuries on the persons of the deceased persons and the injured are opined to be as a result of vehicular accident. Merely because the witnesses are police officials, is hardly sufficient to doubt their veracity as their presence is otherwise proved on the record. They had no animus against the petitioner to implicate him falsely in the case. 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 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 Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [5] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.2059 of 2004(O&M) [6] two persons had lost their lives because of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, 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, Hoshiarpur for compliance. November 18, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE