Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : January 18, 2011 Mohan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sunil Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Vide its judgment dated 10.01.2004, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced Mohan Singh - accused / petitioner (herein referred as `the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. However, on 25.01.2005, the Appellate Court at Narnaul while dismissing his appeal, reduced the sentence to one year under Section 304-A IPC, without altering the sentence for other offence. In brief, the prosecution version is that on 7.2.1998, Naresh Kumar along with Vikram Singh, Parveen and his uncle Lala Ram had gone to the Police Station Narnaul in connection with some matrimonial dispute. Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] However, one Rajesh started hurling abuses there and then, on the advise of his uncle, Naresh left the Police Station on his scooter. Vikram and Parveen also left the place for village Seka on a motor cycle Hero Honda bearing Reg.No.RJ-02M/1851. Vikram and Parveen were fifty paces ahead of scooter of Naresh. When the motor-cycle of Vikram reached near Vidhata Hotel, Rewari Road, a mini bus bearing No.HR-35/8603 being driven by the accused rashly and negligently, and at a very high speed came and struck against the motor-cycle, as a result of which, Parveen died at the spot, while Vikram sustained multiple injuries on his head and legs. The First Information Report was registered; the accused was arrested and statements of the witnesses were recorded. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the accused, he was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304- A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In an endeavour to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed with some modification in the sentence, as above. Heard. The sole contention of the counsel for the accused is that neither Vikram, the driver of the motor-cycle, who was carrying the deceased, nor any other independent witness has been examined. Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] The eye-witness account in the shape of statement of Naresh (PW5) is very cogent and convincing. While appearing in the witness box, Naresh has categorically deposed that on 7.2.1998, he was going towards his home on his scooter and Vikram and Parveen (deceased) were going on a motor-cycle and were 20-30 steps ahead of him. He further deposed that when they reached near Vidhata Hotel, Rewari Road, the accused while driving the offending bus at a very high speed came from wrong side and struck against the motor-cycle, due to which, Parveen died at the spot, while Vikram sustained injuries. Though, the witness does not specifically state that the driving of the accused was rash and negligent, yet the fact that the offending bus was being driven on wrong side at a very high speed itself proves the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. Rather, such an unambiguous statement coming out from the mouth of this witness makes it more trust-worthy and understandable even for a layman that the accused's act was rash and negligent. So far as the non-examination of Vikram, injured witness is concerned, it was the prerogative of the prosecution to examine this witness to get corroboration only, as the occurrence had already stood proved from the statement of eye-witness Naresh (PW5). It is a settled law that the evidence of even a single eye-witness qua an occurrence can be acted upon if it inspires confidence and does not leave any speck of doubt in the mind of the Court relating to the genuineness of the evidence. The other point with regard to non-examination of any independent witness is also of no consequence as in case of road accidents, many persons gather at the spot only after the occurrence. The same very Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] fact has come in the statement of Naresh (PW5), but it has nowhere come on record that any of them had witnessed the occurrence. Moreover, it has also become common in human behaviour that by deposing against anyone, they would not gain anything, but it would result in wastage of time in repeated rounds to the police station/ courts and earning the wrath of the accused. The accused has not alleged any enmity against the sole eye- witness. On scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that the testimonies of the eye-witness cannot be doubted. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular version. 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 Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] 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 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 accused Criminal Revision No.340 of 2005(O&M) [ 6 ] concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that one young person had lost his life and the other suffered injuries, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence, which has already been reduced by the Appellate Court, appears to be in commensuration with the crime committed. Hence, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul for compliance. January 18, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE