Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1871 OF 2003 (O&M) Decided on : September 23, 2010 Harnek Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 22.8.2003 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.7.1999 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala convicting and sentencing the accused as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and fine of Rs.500/- U/s 427 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.100/- U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months Briefly stated the facts as emanating from the prosecution version are that on 22.5.1995, Parminder Kaur, an injured admitted in the Civil Hospital, Samrala made statement before Assistant Sub Inspector Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [2] Atma Singh alleging that on 21.5.1995, she along with her husband Avtar Singh and son Manmeet Singh was returning to Moga in Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.PB-29-5944, after meeting their daughter Sangeet Johal in the school at Kasauli. Avtar Singh was on the driving seat, while she was sitting along with him and their son Manmeet Singh was sitting on the rear seat. At about 7.00 PM, when they reached near Raju Filling Station, a tractor bearing Reg.No.PBV-7314 mark Swaraj, being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner came from the opposite side and, it without giving any signal turned towards the petrol pump and struck in their car, as a result of which their car after covering some distance turned turtle. In the accident, her husband Avtar Singh had died on the spot and she along with her son Manmeet Singh were shifted to the Hospital. The driver of the tractor fled after leaving the tractor at the spot, whose name was later on found to be Harnek Singh son of Malkiat Singh resident of village Ghungrali. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the First Information Report was registered and the investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded; the petitioner was arrested; the vehicles were taken into possession and after completing all other necessary formalities, challan against the petitioner was presented in the court. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in a bid to prove its case examined Dr.Sanjay Kapoor (PW1), Parminder Kaur Johal – complainant (PW2), Manmeet Singh (PW3), ASI Atma Singh (PW4), Dr.Shashi Kant (PW5), Khushwinder Pal Singh (PW6), Constable Harbans Singh (PW7), Budh Parkash (PW8), Gurpreet Singh (PW9) and Head Constable Gurmit Singh Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [3] (PW10). After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. The trial resulted in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The prime contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the identity of the petitioner is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, it is observed that Parminder Kaur Johal – complainant (PW2) and Manmeet Singh (PW3), the two injured witnesses examined by the prosecution, who had the occasion to see the petitioner holding the steering of the offending tractor have proved his identity. Parminder Kaur in her deposition before the Court has specifically stated that the accused `present in court' came from Samrala side while driving tractor No.PBV-7314 make Swaraj and he turned his tractor towards the petrol pump. Mameet Singh (PW3) has also not minced the matters. Both being injured, their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The tractor was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the place of accident and it also came out during the investigation that the petitioner was the owner of the offending tractor. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid evidence is that the presence of the petitioner on the driving seat of the tractor, is proved beyond doubt. Though, it is mentioned in the FIR that the name of the petitioner had come to the knowledge later on, yet mentioning of this fact in Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [4] the FIR itself shows the truthfulness of the version of the complainant. In the vehicular accidents on Highways, more oftenly the names of the drivers are known later on unless the complainant or the witnesses know them since earlier, however, the witness, who had the occasion and opportunity to see him, could well identify him. Now, coming to the rashness and negligence, fault of the petitioner is writ large and is apparent. From the perusal of the mechanical reports; Ex.P-22 relating to the car driven by the deceased; Ex.P-23 relating to the offending tractor driven by the petitioner, it transpires that the right wheel of the tractor was broken and on its panel, the particles of white paint were also traced, while the driver side window of the car was found damaged, leading to the conclusion that the tractor struck against the driver side of the car. Moreover, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the evidence so meticulously at the revisional stage as 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. 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 Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, 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. Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2003(O&M) [6] 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. The crux of the discussion is that 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. This court finds no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgments, which speak to the volumes about the negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident. Hence, the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below deserve to be upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, a valuable life has been lost, two others suffered injuries and the car was also damaged due to the rashness and negligence of the accused, for which the sentence awarded by the Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance. Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority, as per Rules. September 23, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE