Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 14, 2010 Talwinder Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Talwinder Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by Appellate Court dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 19.4.1999 convicting him under Sections 304-A, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him as under:- U/s 304-A rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and fine of Rs.500/- U/s 337 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months U/s 427 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.200/- The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is that on 25.8.1994 at about 5.30 PM, Bahadur Singh, (brother-in-law of the complainant Harchand Singh) along with Amarjit Kaur wife of Bhajan Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [2] Singh and Taranjit Kaur wife of Malkiat Singh was going in Maruti car bearing Reg.No.DL-5CA-3090. The complainant also picked up Bahadur Singh, as he was to go to Chandigarh. When, they all reached near Kamal Filling Station, Samrala, the petitioner while driving truck bearing Reg.No.PAT-7705 (hereinafter `the offending truck') rashly and negligently struck against the car and, thereafter, dragged it to some distance. Resultantly, Taranjit Kaur died on the spot, while the others suffered injuries including the complainant. Amarjit Kaur and Bahadur Singh were shifted to Civil Hospital, Samrala. However, Bahadur Singh had succumbed to the injuries on the way to Hospital. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the First Information Report was registered against the petitioner. He was arrested. The post mortem on the dead bodies was got conducted, site plan was got prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, the challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, he was charged for the offences under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Ranjit Singh (PW1), Doctor Vijesh Soni (PW2), Kamaljit Kumar (PW3), Harchand Singh (PW4), Doctor Shashi Kant (PW5), Amarjit Kaur (PW6) and ASI Prem Nath (PW7). ASI Prem Nath appears to have been inadvertently mentioned as PW8 by the Trial Court. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [3] Having scrutinised the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the Trial Court, no exception could be made to the view taken by both the courts below that the accident committed on 25.8.1994 was the result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Thus, it is established that on the said date when Bahadur Singh while driving Maruti car bearing Reg.No.DL-5CA-3090 was near the petrol pump running in the name and style of Kamal Filling Station near Samrala, then the petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently and bringing the same on the wrong side struck against his car and rendered two persons dead and the remaining injured. The question of mistaken identity does not arise as the witnesses had the occasion to see the petitioner and they came to know about his name as the cleaner of the truck was heard naming him. It is settled by now that Test Identification Parade is not required in every case if the identity of the accused by the eye-witnesses finds corroboration from other source. In this case, the statement (Ex.PB) made by Harchand Singh within 1½ hours of the accident contains the name of the petitioner and the number of the offending vehicle. Though, the accused had fled away, yet the offending truck which was taken into possession at the spot and the driving license of the petitioner having been found from the said truck considered together with the statement of the complainant apparently establish the presence of the petitioner on the wheels of the offending vehicle. It is further noted that the truck was the ownership of the petitioner and the Registration Certificate was also taken into possession by the police. All the aforesaid circumstances corroborate the testimony of Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [4] Harchand Singh (PW4) and Amarjit Kaur (PW6), who have categorically stated that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending truck at the relevant time. The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the occupants of the Maruti Car. 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 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.” Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [5] 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 finding of guilt of the petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, is upheld. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that two persons had lost their lives and two suffered injuries, therefore, keeping Criminal Revision No.2048 of 2003(O&M) [6] in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court appears to be already on the lesser side. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance. September 14, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE