Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1752 OF 2005(O&M) Decided on : December 07, 2010 Bhagwant Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 31.8.2005 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal of Bhagwant Singh – accused/ petitioner against the judgment dated 9.5.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal convicting the accused under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, u/s 279 and 337 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 338 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] u/s 304-A IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated the facts as emanating from the prosecution version are that on 19.3.1995, the complainant Kesh Pal (herein referred as `the complainant') got his statement recorded with the police that on that day, he along with his wife Santosh, his daughter Pinki and his nephew Tarsem was going from Cheeka to Kaithal by Haryana Roadways Bus bearing Reg.No.HR08/2731. In total, there were about 40/45 passengers in the bus and it was being driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed by Dal Singh driver. When the bus reached near the Dera of Dilu Ram, a Punjab Roadways bus bearing Reg.No.PJG-7668 came from the opposite side, which was also being driven rashly and negligently. Both the buses collided with each other from front side, as a result of which, his wife Santosh, daughter Pinki and a young man died at the spot, while his nephew's legs were broken. The other passengers also suffered injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the First Information Report was registered and the investigation commenced. However, during investigation few more persons including Dal Singh driver of Bus No.HR-08/2731, Tarsem, Soni and Mahender Singh succumbed to the accidental injuries. Both the drivers of the buses were found to be negligent. Since Dal Singh had died thereafter, accused Bhagwant Singh, driver of the offending Punjab Roadways bus was arrested; the statements of the witnesses were recorded; the rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] was also dismissed. I have heard Shri Vivek Singla, learned counsel – amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner and Shri J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent State of Haryana and have perused the records of the case. In this case, the driving licence of the petitioner was taken into possession by the police and the defence witness, namely Prem Sagar (DW1), who was conductor on the offending Punjab Roadways bus also proved that the petitioner was driving the said bus at the time of accident. Thus, the identity of the petitioner stands duly proved on the record. The rash and negligent act of the petitioner is writ large on the record. Seven persons had lost their lives and many were rendered handicapped. Gurcharan Singh (PW11), who was passenger in Haryana Roadways Bus deposed that the offending Punjab Roadways bus came from the front side and hit the Haryana Roadways bus. He has further stated that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of both the drivers. Jethu Ram (PW13) also deposed that the accused was driving the offending bus at a very high speed and in a negligent manner. The accused has not alleged any prior enmity of the witnesses with him, so as to involve him falsely in the case. Hence, the veracity of the testimonies of these witnesses cannot be doubted. In any case, concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the courts below in the absence of any perversity, cannot be set aside merely on the flimsy grounds. The interference at this revisional stage, could be made only if Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] the impugned judgment was palpably wrong, perverse or ignoring the relevant evidence or taking into consideration irrelevant evidence or there was misconduct of trial. 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. 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 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 Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] 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. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand point, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by re- appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail Bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence.” Hence, the findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner are affirmed. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is a matter of common experience that, day in and a day out, these drivers of heavy vehicles in utter disregard to the traffic rules and instructions and without bothering to the value of the precious human lives, drive ruthlessly and carelessly rendering thousands of people as dead and lacs of people as disabled, Criminal Revision No.1752 of 2005(O&M) [ 6 ] therefore, taking a lenient view in the present case would amount to encouraging such people, to have a free hand to drive carelessly, rashly and negligently in future. To my mind, the sentence awarded against the petitioner is already on the lower side. As such, no justification could be seen for reduction in the sentence. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. The amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the concerned quarters. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE December 07, 2010 `gian'