Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) Decided on : August 06, 2010 Surender s/o Desh Raj ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sanjay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 5.7.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 26/27.7.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani convicting and sentencing the accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- u/s 337; rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.500/- u/s 279; and rigorous imprisonment for 21 months and a fine of Rs.2000/- u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to an unfortunate accident, wherein, two persons lost their lives and three suffered injuries. Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [2] Factual matrix of the case is that on 16.11.1992 at about 1.00 AM, complainant Roshan along with Desh Raj, Jogender, Satpal, Suresh and Rajesh was going to his village Lohani in a four-wheeler bearing Reg.No.HR-16-6513. At about 1.30 AM, when they reached near village Lehlana, one Peter Rehra (Jugar) driven by the accused was seen coming. He was driving the same rashly and negligently. Despite the fact that the Satpal, driver of the four-wheeler slowed down the vehicle, the accused collided with the same, resulting into injuries to Jogender, Desh Raj, Satpal, Suresh and Rajesh. Out of them, Suresh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon, the investigation commenced. Ultimately, the accused was challaned and tried accordingly. The prosecution to substantiate its version, examined Neki Ram (PW1), Brahm Dutt (PW2), Roshan Lal (PW3), Ramesh Kumar (PW4), Deshraj (PW5), Satpal (PW6), Krishan Kumar (PW7), Sadhu Ram (PW8), Ved Parkash (PW9), ASI Mahender Kumar (PW10) and Sukhvinder Singh (PW11). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The star witness to prove the accident is Roshan Lal (PW3), who has categorically identified the accused and stated that the accident took place on account of his fault. He has also proved that the accused was Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [3] driving the peter rehra rashly and negligently. The contention of the counsel for the accused that Roshan Lal (PW3) is an interested witness, is devoid of any merit. Be that as it may, he was related to the deceased, yet he being the injured witness, his presence at the spot is far from doubt. As such, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he was related to the deceased. Moreover, his testimony stands corroborated by Satpal (PW6) and further their testimonies find corroboration from the medical evidence. Mere fact that Deshraj (PW5) resiled from his previous statement, is hardly sufficient to disbelieve the other evidence on the record. As the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused at the spot, therefore, non-conducting of Test Identification Parade is of no consequence. Both the courts below have duly indicted the accused at fault. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below cannot be disturbed or interfered with, merely on minor reasons, particularly when the evidence has been duly appreciated and the verdict given by them is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. It is a settled law by now that the interference at the revisional stage could be made very sparingly and in cases where the judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or the court while holding the trial misconducted the proceedings. It has also been observed by the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration , AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [4] Further, on the issue, it held as under:- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment of the evidence, at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the appellant. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Similarly, while discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under:- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [5] jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of 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 when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) and another, AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2001 (O&M) [6] have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. The sentence awarded is also in commensuration with the offence committed. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgments. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to ensure custody of the accused - petitioner to undergo remaining part of his sentence. August 06, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE