Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 August, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001 (O&M) Decided on : August 16, 2010 Kewal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate - amicus curiae for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.-
The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, convicted and sentenced the accused - petitioner Kewal Singh (herein referred as `the accused') for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A and for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed on 24.01.2001.
The case relates to the death of Brahm Dutt and causing injuries to Deep Dial Singh and Om Wati, allegedly by the accused on account of his rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB-11B-9346. On 25.7.1992, at about 11.30 AM, the complainant Amar Nath was present at Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [2] his Auto Repair shop in front of H.M.T.Pinjore, when Brahm Dutt while driving his scooter No.HR-03/4587 and Om Wati sitting on its pillion seat, came from Pinjore side. In the meantime, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.CH-01D/6737 came from the side of Panchkula, and at the same time, the accused while driving a PRTC bus bearing Reg.No.PB-11B/9346 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn came there and struck against the scooter and dragged it to some distance, as a result of which the motor cyclist Dial Singh, scooterists Brahm Dutt and Om Wati suffered injuries. However, Brahm Dutt died later on. On the statement of Amar Nath (Ex.PW-1/A), the FIR was registered on the same day. The law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, took the motor cycle, scooter as also the offending bus into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/C, respectively, along with the documents. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, got the vehicles mechanically checked. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged for the offence under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Though, Amar Nath - complainant (PW1) and Dial Singh - injured eye-witness (PW3) did not support the prosecution case, yet Om Wati, another injured eye-witness while appearing as PW5 has fully supported the prosecution case. Shri Deep Ram, Inspector CIA staff (PW6) has proved the investigation. Dr.S.K.Sharma, Medical Officer (PW4) proved the post mortem report of Brahm Dutt. Ramesh Kumar Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [3] photographer (PW2) proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P3 and the negatives Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, taken by him on the spot. Constable Rohtash Singh (PW7), who had conducted mechanical examination of the vehicles, proved his reports Ex.PW7/A to PW7/C. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused pleaded his false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. The trial ended in conviction and his appeal was also dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The contention that Om Wati (PW5) being the wife of the deceased is an interested witness and in the absence of any corroboration from any source, no reliance could be placed, is devoid of any merit. Om Wati is a stamped witness, as she had also suffered injuries in the accident, therefore, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted. She has given minute details of the accident including the factum of identification of the accused. Amar Nath (PW1) though had been declared hostile, yet he has not denied the accident having taken place. According to him, the accident had taken place with the offending bus. He has also admitted about the presence of Om Wati on the pillion seat of the scooter at the time of the accident. Since Om Wati (PW5) has duly identified the accused, therefore, mere hostility of Amar Nath (PW1) to the extent that he had refused to identify the accused is of no consequence, as in the present scenario of this material world, witnesses could tilt any side for variety of reasons. In any case, the testimony of Om Wati (PW5) stands corroborated by the medical evidence as well as other evidence in the shape of mechanical reports of the damaged Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [4] vehicles, photographs and recovery of the bus from the place of occurrence. At this revisional stage, when there are concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused returned by the two courts below, minute appreciation of the evidence is not required. Both the Courts have scrutinized the evidence threadbare and reached the conclusion that the evidence so produced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime.
The findings of fact recorded by the courts below cannot be disturbed or interfered with on flimsy grounds, particularly when the evidence has been duly considered and the verdict given, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence.
It is a settled law by now that 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 court misconducted the proceedings resulting into miscarriage of justice. 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 deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [5] 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. Puttumana Nath 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 Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [6] 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."
In any case, 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. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 555.
Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. The sentence awarded commensurates gravity of the offence committed. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.
Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
Criminal Revision No.117 of 2001(O&M) [7]Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula to ensure custody of the accused - petitioner to undergo remaining part of his sentence.
Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration, as per Rules.
August 16, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE