Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 24, 2010 Jit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate – amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.7.2001 tried Jit Singh – accused / petitioner (herein referred as `the accused'), convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. His appeal also failed. In brief, the prosecution version is that on 7.4.1994, on receipt of information about the incident, ASI Bir Singh along with other police officials visited Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and sought opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the fitness of the injured Gopal Chand; he Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [2] recorded his statement, wherein, he narrated that on 6.4.1994, he along with Anil Kumar s/o Rameshwar Das, Anil Kumar s/o Bali Ram, Gopal Chand @ Happy, Rajesh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar had gone in a van bearing Reg.No.PIS-433 to Patran to see the in-laws of Ravinder Kumar. However, on their way back, when they reached near the truck union, Patran, then at about 11.15 PM, the accused while driving truck bearing Reg.No.PB23-2812 at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from Sangrur side and after coming to the wrong side, struck into the van. Resultantly, all the occupants of the van received injuries. On enquiry by him, the truck driver disclosed his name as `Jit Singh son of Santa Singh'. However, after he went busy taking care of other injured, the accused fled away from the scene. The injured were shifted to the Rajindra Hospital, where Ravinder Kumar succumbed to the injuries. However, Rajesh Kumar also died later on in CMC Ludhiana on 8.4.1994. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the First Information Report was registered. The accused was apprehended. The completion of investigation was followed by filing of the challan against him in the Court. Finding a prima facie case, the Trial Court charged the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 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 thirteen witnesses. However, the Court closed the evidence by order. 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 innocence. In defence, he examined Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [3] Ramesh Kumar (DW1) and Bhupinder Singh (DW2). However, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The contention of the counsel for the accused is two fold; firstly, that there is delay in lodging the FIR, and secondly, that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their testimonies are not reliable. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the accident had allegedly taken place on 6.4.1994 at about 11.15 PM and the FIR was lodged on 7.4.1994 in the afternoon. Here, it needs mention that the police had got first information about the accident and the injured having been admitted in the Rajindra Hospital, from the mouth of Ramesh Kumar on 7.4.1994, upon which the police swung into action and ASI Bir Singh (PW5) reached the Rajindra Hospital, moved application Ex.PW5/A, upon which the doctor declared the complainant Gopal Chand fit to make a statement at 10.30 AM; then the Investigating Officer recorded his statement and sent ruqa Ex.PW5/B at 12.00 noon to the Police Station, upon which FIR Ex.PW5/C was recorded. In the circumstances, the prosecution has well-explained the interregnum period, which lapsed between the information received and the lodging of the FIR. Now, coming to the other contention with regard to credibility of the prosecution witnesses, injured eye-witnesses, namely; Gopal Chand – complainant (PW3), Gopal Chand @ Happy (PW4) and Anil Kumar (PW9) have been examined. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW3 has reiterated his version, as set forth in the statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which the FIR had been registered. This witness has given Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [4] minute details of the accident, while asserting that the accused while driving the offending truck rashly and negligently struck the van, resulting into the accident. He has specifically stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the accused. Gopal Chand @ Happy (PW4) and Anil Kumar (PW9), the other injured eye-witnesses have fully corroborated his version. Moreover, in case of accidents on the roads, none other than the occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident, who suffered the injuries, can be better witnesses. The injured persons would be the last persons to frame another person than the real culprit, particularly, in such a case like the present one, where the accused even has not alleged any enmity against any of the witnesses. In the circumstances, the testimonies of the eye-witnesses cannot be doubted. The witnesses have consistently stated that the accused was on the wheels of the offending truck at the relevant time. The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the deceased and the injured. Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, is hardly sufficient to doubt the veracity of their statements, so as to ignore it by declaring them as interested witnesses. 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 Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.2065 of 2003(O&M) [6] 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 two persons had lost their lives and four suffered injuries, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears to be already on the lesser side. Hence, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. September 24, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE