Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhola Ram vs State Of Punjab on 28 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : September 28, 2010 Bhola Ram ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for the respondent - State of Punjab.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
Bhola Ram, accused - petitioner (herein referred as `the petitioner') has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 16.6.2004 passed by Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala) dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 4.6.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for brevity `IPC'); and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC.
The version of the prosecution is that on 22.3.1998 at about 10.30 AM, Noor Mohammed - complainant along with his sister Jetun and one Sain Ali was going on the GT Road with their buffaloes on the kacha Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) [2] berm of the road. The complainant was going ahead of the buffaloes, whereas, Jetun and Sain Ali were moving along with the buffaloes on the kacha path. When they reached near Sukhna factory, then a truck bearing Reg.No.RJ-31G-0082, being driven by the accused rashly and negligently, came from the side of Rajpura and hit Jetun and one buffalo from the backside, as a result of which Jetun died at the spot. The driver fled away from the spot leaving the offending truck on the spot.
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 body of Jetun was got conducted; site plan was got prepared; the offending truck was taken into possession; 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 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined the complainant Noor Mohd. (PW1), Sain Ali (PW2), Dr.I.C.Teneja (PW3), ASI Jai Kishan (P5) and Sunil Kumar photographer (PW6).
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.
Having scrutinised the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the Trial Court, no exception could be made to the view expressed by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact that on 22.03.1998 the complainant (PW1) along with Jetun (deceased) and Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) [3] Sain Ali (PW2) was going on the GT Road from the side of Rajpura to Banur for grazing the cattle and at about 10.30 AM, the petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently hit Jetun and a buffalo by coming on the kacha path, as a result of which both had died.
The question of mistaken identity does not arise. Both the eye witnesses have duly identified the petitioner and they had the opportunity and occasion to see him. More so, the petitioner has not alleged any previous enmity with the complainant party, so as to think over the issue of false implication. The complainant party had lost one member of their family within twinkling of an eye and in such circumstances, no person would replace the original culprit with an innocent person. Though, the accused had fled away, yet the offending truck was taken into possession at the spot. Prior to his fleeing away, the witnesses had sufficient time to see him. Hence, the identity of the petitioner stands proved beyond doubt.
Further more, the photographs Ex.P1 to P-3 and the negatives Ex.P4 to P6, duly proved by Sunil Kumar (PW6) also depict that the deceased was on the kacha path of the road at the time of the accident.
The medical evidence also proves the accidental injuries on the persons of the deceased. 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 Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) [4] 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."
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 Criminal Revision No.542 of 2004(O&M) [5] 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 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 one valuable life had been lost due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner and an animal had also died, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded, appears to be in commensuration with the offence committed. 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 29, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE