JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - Tirlochan Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as ‘the petitioner’) has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.9.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 304-A IPC rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and fine of Rs.2000/- U/s 279 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months 2. Jeet Ram – complainant (PW1), an agriculturist and resident of village Baroli, having his field near GT Road within the area of village Khotpura, got his statement (Ex.PA) recorded with the police that on 23.4.1994 at about 8/9.00 AM, he along with his maternal grand son Rinku (deceased), aged about 15/16 years and his neighbour Om Parkash (PW2) was coming from his field along with a ‘buggi’ (bullock-cart) carrying the fodder. When they reached near GT Road, then Rinku was ahead of them, in the meanwhile, the accused/ petitioner (herein referred as ‘the petitioner’) while driving a canter DCM Toyota bearing Reg.No.HNX-4244 rashly and negligently came and hit Rinku, as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle slipped away from the spot. 3. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the First Information Report (Ex.PW5/C) was registered against the petitioner; he was arrested; the post mortem on the dead body was got conducted; site plan was got prepared; the offending canter 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. 4. 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. 5. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Jeet Ram – complainant (PW1), Om Parkash (PW2), Constable Mahender Kumar (PW3), HC Mukhtiar Singh (PW4), HC Jai Bhagwan (PW5), Dr.R.K.Garg (PW6), ASI Bhullan Singh (PW7) and Inspector Hari Singh (PW8). 6. 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. 7. 6. 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. 7. 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. The eye-witnesses; complainant Jeet Ram (PW1) and Om Parkash (PW2) have given minute details of the incident, which led to the unfortunate accident. Their version cannot be discarded as they were at a little distance from the deceased, when the offending truck struck against him. 8. The question of mistaken identity does not arise. The deceased Rinku was being followed by the complainant and OM Parkash, who had the opportunity and occasion to see the petitioner. 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 issue of identity also stands established on certain other proved facts i.e. the recovery of the vehicle, driving licence, etc., arrest of the petitioner. The complainant having suffered loss due to an young death in his family within twinkling of an eye, therefore, in such circumstances, he would be the last person to replace the original culprit by an innocent person. Though, the accused had fled away, yet prior to his fleeing away, the eye-witnesses i.e. The complainant (PW1) and Om Parkash (PW2) had sufficient time to see him. Hence, the identity of the petitioner stands proved beyond doubt. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 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 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.” 11. 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 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. 12. Ordinarily, therefore, it 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. 12. 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. 13. Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of the petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. 14. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that an young boy had lost his life on account of the ruthless driving by the accused. The manner in which the accident had taken place, the sentence awarded, commensurates the offence committed by the petitioner. Hence, the same also needs no interference. 15. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 16. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for compliance. 17. Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority, as per Rules. ------------------------