Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : January 18, 2011 Bohar Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this revision petition is the judgment dated 1.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur dismissing the appeal of Bohar Singh – accused/petitioner (herein referred as `petitioner') against the judgment dated 4.6.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and maintaining the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay fine fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated, the allegations as unfolded by Natha Singh complainant (herein referred as `complainant) are that on 26.2.1998 at about 7.30 AM, he along with his nephew Lovepreet Singh alias Kaali went to purchase a pencil. After purchasing the same, when they were returning to Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 2 ] their house, a truck bearing Reg.No.,PBE-7043 driven by the petitioner at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and crushed Lovepreet Singh. The complainant and one Ramesh Kumar took Lovepreet Singh to Baggi Hospital, Ferozepur, but he breathed his last on the way. On the aforesaid allegations, the case was investigated. On submission of the charge report, the petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced evidence in the shape of testimonies of HC Ashok Kumar (PW1), ASI Rajinder Singh (PW2), Prem Kumar (PW3), Harmesh Kumar (PW4)l, HC Prem Pal (PW5), Dr.Sandeep Kakkar (PW6), Natha Singh – complainant (PW7) and ASI Narinderpal Singh (PW8), besides placing on record certain documents. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and has pleaded his false implication. In defence, he examined Constable Gurtej Singh (DW1), who proved copies of DDRs Ex.D1 and D2. However, the trial resulted in conviction and the appeal also failed. Heard. So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that no Test Identification Parade was conducted in this case, is concerned, it is observed that the accident had taken place at 7.30 AM and the first informatory statement, naming the petitioner was lodged by the complainant Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 3 ] at about 9.20 AM, which shows that the complainant had acquaintance with the petitioner since prior to the occurrence. In the circumstances, there was no need for the police to hold Test Identification Parade. Coming to the next contention with regard to hostility of Harmesh Kumar (PW4), it is observed that though, this witness turned hostile, but on this ground alone, the prosecution case as duly proved by eye-witness Natha Singh (PW7) cannot be thrown away. It is a settled law by now that reliance could be placed on the testimony of a solitary eye- witness for holding the accused guilty, provided the same is found trust- worthy and convincing and reliable. Natha Singh, while appearing in the witness box, has stated in clear terms that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner, resulting in killing the child, namely Lovepreet Singh. Nothing fruitful could be elicited from the cross- examination as conducted upon Natha Singh to shatter the prosecution case. Both the courts below have taken the consistent view that it was the petitioner, who while driving the truck rashly and negligently crushed the child under it. Nothing material could be argued, which may impel this court to disturb the findings of fact, returned by both the courts below. The interference at the revisional stage could be made only if the impugned 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 Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 4 ] 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 deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving in 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 revisional 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 Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 5 ] 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 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 Criminal Revision No.588 of 2005(O&M) [ 6 ] 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.” In case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR (Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), 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. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it commensurates with the guilt of the petitioner, therefore, the same also needs no interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. January 18, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) 'gian' JUDGE