REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2001

Raj Kumar ..Appellant

Versus

State of H.P. ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned

Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing

the  criminal  revision  filed  by  the  appellant.  Learned  Sub

Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  Dalhousie,  District  Chamba,

H.P.  had  convicted  the  appellant  for  offences  punishable

under     Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860  (in  short  ‘IPC’).  He  was  sentenced  to  undergo  simple

imprisonment  for  one  year  and to pay a fine  of  Rs.1,000/-

with  default  stipulation  for  the  offence  relatable  to  Section

304A and simple imprisonment for three months for the other

offence. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned

Sessions Judge, Chamba, was dismissed.   

2. A  revision  petition  was  filed  before  the  High  Court

questioning  conviction as  well  as  sentence,  which as  noted

above was dismissed.  

3. The  prosecution  version as  unfolded  during  trial  is  as

follows:

On 16.6.1990, one Shri Mast Ram (PW-7) was travelling

in bus bearing registration No.HTC 34 belonging to Himachal

Road Transport  Corporation (in short  ‘HRTC’)  alongwith his

wife and four children from Surgani to Pathankot. On the way,

2

at  Tunu  Hatti,  bus  No.PJC-4075  belonging  to  Punjab

Roadways  was  coming  from  the  opposite  direction  being

driven by the appellant. It  was alleged that due to the rash

and  negligent  driving  of  the  vehicle  by  the  appellant,  the

vehicle  struck  against  the  HRTC  Bus  due  to  which Master

Manoj  Kumar  and  Kumari  Rajeswari,  son  and  daughter  of

Shri Mast Ram respectively sustained fatal head injuries. The

accident  took  place  around  12.45  p.m.  The  accident  was

reported  to  the  police  by  Mast  Ram  whose  statement  was

recorded  by  the  police  under  Section  154  of  the  Code  of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’)  marked Ext.PW-

7/A. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal

first information report came to be registered at Police Station,

Dalhousie  on  the  same  day  at  about  3.15  P.M.  Head

Constable Kishore Kumar (PW-8) visited the spot immediately

and prepared spot map Exbt.PW-8/A and summoned Sarwan

Singh  (PW-3)  photographer  who  clicked  the  photographs  of

both the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased Manoj Kumar

and Kumari Rajeswari lying on the seat inside the HRTC Bus.

3

Photographs Negatives Exbts.PW-3/H to PW-3/C were placed

on record. During recording of the statements of the material

witnesses  by  PW  Kishore  Kumar,  it  was  found  that  the

accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving

of  the  vehicle  by the  appellant  in  which heads  of  both  the

victims  were  crushed.  After  completion  of  the  investigation

charge  sheet  was  laid  against  the  appellant  for  offence

punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC before the trial

Magistrate.

The  Trial  Magistrate  found  the  evidence  to  be  cogent.

Relying on the evidence of father (PW7) and considering the

other  material  on  record,   the  Trial  Court  recorded  the

conviction as noted above.  But the appellant was extended

the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short

‘Probation  Act’).   The  State  of  Himachal  Pradesh  filed  an

appeal before the Sessions Judge questioning grant of benefit

under the Probation Act.  Learned Sessions Judge set aside

the  order  of  the  Trial  Court  and  remitted  the  matter  for

4

passing appropriate sentence.  Thereafter, as noted above, the

learned Trial Magistrate sentenced the appellant by imposing

custodial sentence and fine.      

4. The basic stand taken before the High Court in support

of the revision petition was that no evidence was led by the

prosecution  that  the  accident  was  as  result  of  rash  and

negligent driving of the appellant.  It was submitted that the

driver of HRTC Bus was negligent in driving which resulted in

the accident.  The High Court considered the limited scope for

interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and the

revision.   The  High  Court  analysed  the  factual  position  to

conclude that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court were not erroneous.      

5. In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the basic requirements to attract Sections 279

and  304A  has  not  been  established.  Alternatively,  it  was

submitted that the sentence is harsh.  The accident took place

5

about  two  decades  back  and  the  appellant  has  already

suffered custody of some period and even if the conviction is

maintained  the  sentence  should  be  reduced  to  the  period

already undergone.       

6. Learned counsel  for the respondent-State on the other

hand supported the judgment of the courts below.

7. In  Duli  Chand v.  Delhi  Administration (AIR  1975  SC

1960), the scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court in

criminal  revision  was  examined  and  it  was  held  in  a  case

involving vehicular accident as follows:

“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

6

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.”    

8. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors. (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.

In  State  of  Kerala v.  Puttamana  Illath  Jathavedan

Namboodiri (1999  (2)  SCC  452)  it  was  held  that  the

revisional  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 7

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.    

9. We find that the trial Court and the Revisional Court have

analysed the evidence in detail to come to the conclusion about

the  guilt  of  the  accused.   There  is  no manifest  error  in the

conclusions or in analyzing the evidence.  That being so, the

High  Court  was  justified  in  law  in  not  exercising  revisional

jurisdiction.  

10. The appeal is dismissed.

........................................ ...J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)     

…….………...........................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

…….…… …...........................J.

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) 8

New Delhi, July 14, 2008

9