Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court was called upon to examine the scope of its revisional jurisdiction in a criminal case arising from a fatal road accident, where the accused questioned the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the Appellate Court. The matter brought into focus issues concerning appreciation of eyewitness testimony, the identification of the offending vehicle, and the extent to which a revisional court may interfere with findings of fact supported by evidence on record.
Brief Facts:
The case originated from a road accident that occurred near Banikhet Helipad on the Chamba–Banikhet road. According to the prosecution, a group of villagers was walking along the road while taking their buffaloes from one place to another when a vehicle allegedly came at high speed and struck, causing the victim to fall unconscious on the spot. He was immediately taken to a nearby health centre, where he was declared dead. The incident was reported to the police, following which an FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation, the vehicle suspected to be involved in the accident was intercepted at the Tunuhatti barrier, where damage to its front glass was noticed. A post-mortem examination attributed the cause of death to a head injury consistent with a motor vehicle accident. Upon completion of investigation, a challan was presented against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trial court convicted the accused, and the conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court, leading to the filing of the criminal revision before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the conviction was unsustainable in law and on the facts. It was argued that there was no reliable evidence to conclusively establish that the vehicle driven by the Petitioner was involved in the accident. The Petitioner emphasised that the informant had turned hostile and that other prosecution witnesses had either failed to identify the accused or were uncertain about the identity of the vehicle involved. The counsel further submitted that the interception of the vehicle at the Tunuhatti barrier was based on mere suspicion and could not, by itself, connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. According to the Petitioner, the findings recorded by the courts below were based on conjectures and selective appreciation of evidence, warranting interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional powers.
Contentions of the State:
The State opposed the revision petition, asserting that the prosecution had successfully established the involvement of the offending vehicle from the very inception of the case. It was submitted that the registration number of the Scorpio vehicle was mentioned in the initial statement of the informant as well as in the FIR, and that the accused himself had admitted, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The State further relied upon the damage found on the front glass of the vehicle at the time of its interception, contending that the accused had failed to offer any explanation for the same. It was argued that the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances clearly pointed towards rash and negligent driving, and that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not undermine the prosecution's case. The State maintained that, in the absence of perversity or illegality, the High Court ought not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction.
Observation of the Court:
The High Court underscored that its powers in criminal revision are extremely limited and cannot be equated with those of an appellate court. Relying on Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court observed that “the High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow.” It reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is meant only “to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law” and not to re-appreciate evidence.
Emphasising restraint where there are concurrent findings of fact, the Court referred to Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, noting that it would be impermissible for the High Court to reassess evidence unless the findings of the courts below are perverse or result in a gross miscarriage of justice. The Court observed that where evidence has already been analysed by both the trial court and the appellate court, “re-appreciation of the same material in revision is not warranted.”
On the issue of eyewitness testimony, the Court clarified that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in its entirety. Placing reliance on Selvamani v. State, the Court observed that “the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and such part of the testimony which is found to be reliable and corroborated can be safely relied upon.”
The Court also dealt with the concept of rash and negligent driving, observing that speed is a relative term and must be judged in light of surrounding circumstances. Referring to Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa, the Court noted that even a vehicle driven at a seemingly moderate speed may constitute negligence when pedestrians and cattle are present on the road, and that failure to exercise due caution in such circumstances amounts to negligent driving.
The decision of the Court:
The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, holding that no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error was demonstrated to warrant exercise of revisional powers. It was observed that the evidence on record sufficiently established rash and negligent driving leading to the fatal accident. The Court further held that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence, noting that a human life had been lost. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 178 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Y.P. Sood , Adv. Parveen Chauhan
Counsel for the State: AAG Jitender Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
