Animadverting upon the judgment dated 19.01.2007 made in C.A.No.222 of 2006 on the file of the learned Addl. District cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 09.05.2006 made in C.C.No.460 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. A 'resume' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(a) The police laid the police report in terms of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against the accused. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner herein/accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. Ultimately the trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo punishment as under:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which both the Courts below relied on are not at all believable as there are incoherent detailing of the alleged incident. Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the front side wheel of the jeep got separated from the vehicle and that alone was the reason for the accident. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of both the Courts below.
4. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he has not appeared and the revision petitioner also is absent. Heard the learned Government Advocate, (crl.side).
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in holding the accused guilty and also in imposing the sentence. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) inviting the attention of this Court to various portions of the evidence would develop his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no infirmity or illegality, perversity or non-application of law on the part of both the Courts below in holding the accused guilty and regarding sentence also no leniency could be shown as the gravity of the offence is such that if any leniency shown, it would be deleterious to the Society.
6. The gist and kernel of the case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2002 at about 12.00 noon (day time) the offending milk van bearing Registration No.TN-41-H-8638 was negotiating along the road from west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against the jeep bearing No.KNM 7653 which was coming in the opposite direction and thereby caused three deaths and injuries to two occupants of the said jeep.
7. The warp and woof of the defence is that the front side right wheel of the jeep got separated from it and that alone was the reason for the accident. The Motor Vehicles Inspector P.W.30 issued Exs.P14 and P15, the accident inspection reports relating to milk van and the jeep respectively which would display and evince that the jeep sustained extensive damage in the accident. Even the Motor Vehicles Inspector stated that after the accident when he inspected the vehicle, he found the wheel dislocated. It is not the case that the wheel completely detached itself from the jeep and ran helter-skelter. It is a common or garden principle of law that had really the right front side wheel got detached from the jeep, certainly the jeep could not have moved to such a long distance as narrated by the prosecution.
8. P.W.1 was riding his Hero Honda at the relevant time of the accident and that he witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 in his deposition detailed and delineated that the milk van was found driven in a disorderly fashion and also in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed as against the jeep on its right side. This is not a case of head on collision so as to attribute any negligence on the part of the jeep driver. Only on the right side of the jeep there was impact. P.W.2 also would bear out the testimony of P.W.1.
9. P.W.3 Venkatesh also would speak about the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. Over and above that P.Ws.18 and 23 who were occupants in the said jeep would also depose about the rash and negligent driving of the milk van. As such, both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record appropriately and correctly arrived at the conclusion warranting no interference by this Court.
10. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:
"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.
14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself.
(ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 Sathyajit Banerjee and Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would run thus:
"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice."
A bare perusal of the said decisions would demonstrate that the revisional court is not expected to interfere with the finding of fact given by both the courts below and if there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of both the courts below, the question of revisional court interfering with such findings would arise.
11. During 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused simply gave a version as though the right side wheel got detached. Absolutely there is nothing to substantiate the said plea and furthermore the facts proved are quite antithetical to what he had put forth as defence. Taking into consideration all these facts, both the Courts below correctly held the accused guilty.
12. In the grounds of revision a faint attempt has been made to create some doubt about the identity of the accused. The very fact that he was the driver of the van at the relevant time of the accident is explicitly clear from the prosecution evidence and the defence plea itself and wherefore regarding identity there is no doubt. Regarding sentence is concerned, it is quite obvious that because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, three deaths occurred and eight occupants were injured and as such, imposition of sentence by no stretch of imagination could be taken as excessive warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, I could see no merit in this revision petition.
In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed. The trial Court, on receipt of a copy of this order is expected to issue warrant to secure the presence of the revision petitioner to undergo sentence, if not already undergone.
gms To
1. Addl. District cum Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore.
2. Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras