Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 851 (RAJ)

Bhoor Chand v. State Of Rajasthan

2000-07-19

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner in the instant revision impugns the judgement dated May 2, 2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar whereby the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the judgement dated August 4, 1995 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehpur Shekhawati Sikar, was dismissed and conviction of sentence of two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC and one month simple imprisonment under Section 279/337 IPC was confirmed. 2. The accused petitioner was tried for having committed an offence under sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused petitioner by his act of rash driving of Truck No. RJV 1255 caused death of Shiv Prakash, Vinod Devi and Kishan Lal. Learned trial court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence and the statement of the petitioner recorded under section 313 Cr.PC., found him guilty and convicted him as above. After unsuccessful appeal the petitioner has preferred the instant revision. 3. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously canvassed that there is no material on record which can connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner could not have been convicted on the basis of his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was driving the truck at the time of accident. In the memo of revision petition it was also stated that both the courts below seriously erred in not awarding the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Jogender Singh v. State (RLW 1999(1) Raj. 621) and Bhanu v. State of Rajasthan ( 1986(1) WLN 563 ) . 4. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. It is well settled that power of revision should be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is not to be exercised only for correcting injustice. 5. It is well settled that power of revision should be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is not to be exercised only for correcting injustice. The revisional court is not expected to act as if it is hearing-an appeal and its jurisdiction is not to be ordinarily invoked or merely that the court below has taken a wrong view of the law or mis appreciated the evidence on record. An order of the court below should not be set-aside simply because the revisional court takes a different view on the evidence. The revisional jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.PC. is limited and is only for the satisfaction as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Revisional jurisdiction does not normally confer power on the revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless a strong case is made out to the effect that the findings recorded in the judgement or order under challenge are perverse. The scope of revision against concurrent findings of fact is very limited since, ordinarily, the revisional court would be loath to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless and until the misreading of evidence or perversity or manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice is successfully pointed out. 6. Coming to the case on hand, it may be noticed that the prosecution has examined the owner to Truck Vijay Singh (PW 8). This witness categorically stated that he employed accused petitioner as the driver of Truck No. RJV 1255 and. on July 13, 1989 when the accident occurred, the accused petitioner was the driver of the said truck. The accused petitioner in his statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. stated that as the front wheel of the truck got out of its place, the accident occurred. 7. I am not impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Ranjan, learned counsel. If the accused was not driving the truck at the time of accident, how could he narrate the cause of accident ? The testimony of truck owner Vijay Singh is trustworthy and both the courts below rightly placed reliance on it. Case law cited on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable. Ranjan, learned counsel. If the accused was not driving the truck at the time of accident, how could he narrate the cause of accident ? The testimony of truck owner Vijay Singh is trustworthy and both the courts below rightly placed reliance on it. Case law cited on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable. In Bhanu v. State (supra) it was held that when the prosecution evidence fails regarding participation of the accused he cannot be convicted on the basis of his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. In Jogendra Singh v. State (supra) the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had driven the vehicle only from Delhi to Bhim and at Bhim he got down and other driver took away the vehicle. The prosecution case rested solely on the Bilti Ex.P 25 in which the name of Jogendra Singh was recorded as Driver of Truck No. DEL 4172. The prosecution had not led any oral evidence in respect of said 'Bilti'. Under these circumstances this court set-aside the conviction of Jogendra Singh. But in the case on hand the prosecution has examined the Truck owner and the petitioner could not rebut his testimony, on the contrary the accused petitioner narrated the cause of the accident. I do not find any perversity the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned courts below. 8. That takes me to the ground pleaded in the revision petition seeking benefit of probation or admonition under section 360 Cr.PC. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressed inability to lean towards the benevolent provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was propounded that "when automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic." 9. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic." 9. The accused petitioner by his act of rash driving caused accident and three unfortunate persons died a horribly painful death. Thus the accused petitioner is not entitled to any leniency. 10. 1 do not find any merit in the revision, it is accordingly dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******