JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant Criminal Revision, petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of judgment dated 23.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar convicting the petitioner for one and half years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 304-A, 279, 337, 338 RPC read with Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur upholding the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar dated 23.05.2002. 2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 RPC read with Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a simple imprisonment of one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- vide judgment dated 23.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar in a criminal file No.31, on the basis of a charge sheet presented by Officer Incharge Police Station Ramnagar in FIR No.78/1999. It is further stated that the prosecution had examined witnesses after the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the petitioner has not examined any witnesses in defence and the trial Court convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Udhampur, which was also dismissed on 09.04.2003. The petitioner challenges both the judgments and prays for setting aside the same and the petitioner be acquitted on the following grounds:- (a) That the evidence adduced by the prosecution has not been appreciated by the trial Court properly which caused miscarriage of justice. (b) That the investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution and the non-examination of the investigating officer goes to the root of the case and therefore the conviction is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. (c) That the petitioner was not driving the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner is not known to any of the prosecution witnesses as he is a resident of a different place but his name has been planted by the Investigating Officer to save some influential person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. (d) That no identification parade has been conducted by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. (e) That the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in FIR at the time of its registration. (d) That no identification parade has been conducted by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. (e) That the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in FIR at the time of its registration. From the perusal of the charge sheet it transpires that his name was included during investigation. Neither the petitioner was present at the time of alleged accident nor he was arrested immediately thereafter. Non-mentioning of driver’s name in FIR indicates that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had either seen him or knew his name. It is only afterwards that the police manipulated the induction of petitioner’s name as driver of the offending vehicle for saving the actual culprit. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses had indicated the conductor’s name, who received the bus fare from them, although the conductor had come in direct contact with every passenger witness during their journey by the bus. All the injured witnesses were induced by the prosecution for wrong identification of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle for the success of their compensation claims before the MACT. The witnesses were given the false impression that if they failed to implicate the petitioner, their claims before the MACT would fail. That is why all the witnesses in one voice have named the petitioner as drier of the ill fated vehicle and have neither identified the conductor nor taken his name. Hence the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding identification of the petitioner as driver cannot be relied upon and therefore the conviction is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 3. Vide order dated 01.05.2003, the instant petition was admitted, notice was issued, operation of impugned sentence was suspended and the accused-petitioner was directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the amount of Rs.10,000/-. On 01.12.2007, order dated 01.05.2003 admitting the petitioner to bail and for suspension of his sentence, was withdrawn. Thereafter, on 16.10.2008, the petitioner was again admitted on bail on the same conditions as has been mentioned vide order dated 01.05.2003. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the records of court below. There was no representation on behalf of petitioner despite the fact that revision petition is pending since long. But when the case was reserved for judgment meanwhile written arguments was filed by counsel for petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the records of court below. There was no representation on behalf of petitioner despite the fact that revision petition is pending since long. But when the case was reserved for judgment meanwhile written arguments was filed by counsel for petitioner. In written arguments it has been stated that the below court has not appreciated the evidence rightly; the I/O has not been examined; the mechanic witness has not been examined. Along with written arguments counsel for petitioner has annexed photocopies copies of judgments. These are:- 1. 1991CR.L.J. 2241 case titled Arvind Balashanker Joshi v. State; 2. CRIMES 2008 (1) HC 307 case titled Katachari Venkata Sunil v. Vanguri Seshumamba; 3. 1991 CRIMES HC 830 case titled Beda Kantan Phukan v State of Assam; and 4. CRIMES (3) 2000 HC 421, case titled Ladu Kishore Chowdhary v. state of Orissa. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. 6. Brief facts of case is that on 22.11.1999 at ‘Basi Morh’ an accident took place by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (bus no.7511/JKO2D) being driven by accused/petitioner which has taken lives of six persons and as many as 15 persons sustained simple or grievous injuries. The bus was coming from suburb to Ramnagar at that very relevant time and day. The story alleged is that on 22.11.199, an information was received by Police Station, Ramnagar at 0915 hrs regarding a vehicular accident involving vehicle No. 7511 JK02D being driven by Amrik Singh towards Ramnagar. It is further alleged that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly, recklessly and negligently and was also carrying an overload on the vehicle and all these factor contributed to the accident, resulting in death of six persons on spot and injuries to so many persons. The driver immediately after the accident fled away from the spot of occurrence. A case FIR No. 78/99 u/s 304-A/279/337/338/RPC was registered against the accused and investigation was started. The investigation revealed the complicity of accused in the commission of the crime and so he was charge sheeted before the court of JMIC Ramnagar under aforementioned offences. The driver immediately after the accident fled away from the spot of occurrence. A case FIR No. 78/99 u/s 304-A/279/337/338/RPC was registered against the accused and investigation was started. The investigation revealed the complicity of accused in the commission of the crime and so he was charge sheeted before the court of JMIC Ramnagar under aforementioned offences. Prosecution examined 33 witnesses after accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him u/s 279/337/398/304-A of Ranbir Penal Code and 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act and accused was given time to adduce defense evidence but he could not examine any witness in defiance. 7. Court below after conclusion of trial convicted the accused/petitioner on 23.5.2002 on the grounds that prosecution witnesses who were injured have categorically narrated that accused petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident in which 6 persons were killed and 15 persons were injured. Court below has also held that accused /petitioner was warned by passenger to slow the speed, but he did not listen. The petitioner/accused thereafter filed the appeal before Sessions Judge, Udhampur but it was dismissed on 09.04.2003 on the grounds that judgment of JMIC did not suffer from and infirmity of law and facts. The main ground mentioned in appeal is that I/O in the case has not been examined and there is nexus between rashness and accident. That all witnesses examined have stated that vehicle was being driven speedily. 8. The scope of revision against concurrent finding of facts in vehicular death has been laid down in 2008 (11) SCC 76 in case titled Raj Kumar v State of H.P. wherein it is held as under :- “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 vs. 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 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.” 9. Before commenting upon the merits of the case, I think it is necessary to give a brief resume of prosecution evidence in order to see as to whether the concurrent finding of both courts on facts is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. The appeal is dismissed.” 9. Before commenting upon the merits of the case, I think it is necessary to give a brief resume of prosecution evidence in order to see as to whether the concurrent finding of both courts on facts is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. PW 1 Jagdev Singh : He has stated that on 22.11.199, he was travelling by Bus No. 7511 from Amroh to Ramnagar. Bus was driven by accused at a very high speed. The bus met with an accident at Bassi and went down the road. 60/70 passengers were travelling in the vehicle. The road where the accident took place is metalled and hilly as well as plain. He cannot say as to how the accident was caused, though he was also in the vehicle. H sustained injuries. There was no other vehicle on the road at the relevant time. In cross examination, he says that his name is Amrik Singh. He has not seen the accused sine the day of accident. There was no defect in machinery of the vehicle nor did parapet fell down before the accident. He can not say as to what was the exact speed of the vehicle but it was being driven fast. The place of accident is wide enough to allow two vehicles to cross at a time. PW 2 Gouri Shankar : He also says that the boarded vehicle No. 7511 JK02D at Amroh. The vehicle filled with passengers to its capacity and some passengers were standing as well. The vehicle was going very fast and met with an accident at Basi Morh. Three persons died on spot and all the three were passengers of ill fated vehicle. The road at the place of accident is metalled. The vehicle was carrying overload and was fast. How the accident occurred cannot be stated. His leg got fractured in the accident. In cross examination, he says that he saw the driver when he boarded the bus and thereafter he could not see the driver, as the vision was obstructed due to passengers standing in between. The accused was driving the vehicle fast. PW3 Mst Shanoo: Her statement has been recorded twice as on 2.11.2000. She stated that she can identify the accused and since the accused was not present on that day. So her statement was deferred and finally was recorded on 2.11.2000. The accused was driving the vehicle fast. PW3 Mst Shanoo: Her statement has been recorded twice as on 2.11.2000. She stated that she can identify the accused and since the accused was not present on that day. So her statement was deferred and finally was recorded on 2.11.2000. She has identified the accused and has stated that he was the driver of the ill fated bus. The bus met with an accident at Basi Morh. Some passengers were standing as well. Three persons died. The road at the place of occurrence is metalled and there was no other vehicle near the place of accident. The accident occurred when the driver was negotiating a curve. PW5 Mst Geeta Devi : She has stated that an accident took place in which she was injured. The vehicle was over loaded and driven fast. She does not know the driver. PW7 Zulfi Ram : He has stated that some months before, he boarded the bus at ‘Pachraka’ and bus was being driven by the accused very fast. The bus went down the road and his left leg was fractured. 4-5 persons died on spot. The accident took place after the curve was negotiated by the accused. How the accident took place cannot be stated by him but the accused is the driver and was known to him earlier also. He could see the driver clearly during his travel. PW8 Chirag Din : He has stated that the ill fated vehicle was driven by accused very fast. He asked the driver to slow down the speed but he replied that he knows his business. The accident occurred near Marta Morh at a place where road is plain. Three persons died and he also sustained injuries. The bus was over crowded. He could see the driver very well and accused was the driver. After accident he did not see the accused. PW9 Mohan Lal : He has stated that he can identify the accused. His statement was recorded ten on 12.04.2001. He stated that accused is known to him. He was driving vehicle No. 7511 JK02D rashly and negligently. The passengers told him to slow down the vehicle but he did not. The bus went down the road. At the place of occurrence, the road is wide. The bus was over crowded. Three persons died on spot. He stated that accused is known to him. He was driving vehicle No. 7511 JK02D rashly and negligently. The passengers told him to slow down the vehicle but he did not. The bus went down the road. At the place of occurrence, the road is wide. The bus was over crowded. Three persons died on spot. In cross-examination, he says that he knew the accused before the accident also. The accused was driving the vehicle fast even when he was proceeding from Ramnagar. Brakes of the vehicle and other machinery were in order. The accident took place due to reckless driving of accused. Road is narrow but is metalled. PW 10 Prem Nath : He has stated that deceased Baldev Raj was his brother, who died in road accident on 22.11.1999. Accident took place near Gundya. The deceased was also travelling in the bus. PW 11 Shatoo : He has stated that his son met with road accident. He was referred to Udhampur Hospital and he did after 15 days. PW 12 Puran Chand : His son Sukh Dev Kumar also died in road accident and dead body was handed over to him after post mortem. PW 13 Durga Dass : He is the witness to seizure. He says that bus was seized in his presence through seizure memo EXPS in police station Ramnagar. PW 14 Devinder Kumar: He has stated that bus No. 7511 JK02D met with an accident at Gundiyan. The papers of the vehicle and vehicle was seized through seizure memo EXPXS. The vehicle was being driven by accused. PW 15 Shiv Ram : He says that an accident took place at Bassi and his son Sukhdev got injured. He died later on. PW 17 Ashok Kumar : He says that bus No. 1175 was being driven fast by some body. He was told by passengers to drive the vehicle slowly. The driver did not slow down the vehicle and it met with an accident. The bus was over crowded. Some persons died on spot. Some sustained injuries. The road at the place of occurrence is wide enough to allow three vehicles to cross at a time. The vehicle was not in good condition. PW 21 Shiv Dev Singh : He says that his brother died in road accident at Gundyan on 22.11.1999. The bus was over crowded. Some persons died on spot. Some sustained injuries. The road at the place of occurrence is wide enough to allow three vehicles to cross at a time. The vehicle was not in good condition. PW 21 Shiv Dev Singh : He says that his brother died in road accident at Gundyan on 22.11.1999. PW 23 Rajinder Singh : He also says that his cousin Madan Singh also died in road accident. PW 24 Dhani Ram : He has stated that his son boarded the vehicle at danga and bus met with an accident at marta morh and his son Sham died on spot. PW 26 Parshotam Dass : He has stated that he was travelling in a bus being driven by accused at high speed. The passengers asked the accused to slow down the speed but the accused replied that he knows his business. The bus met with an accident. 3-4 persons died on spot. He also sustained injuries on his back. The accident was as a result of negligence of accused. The bus number is not known to him. He says he was the accused for the first time on the day of accident. He was sitting in the centre of the vehicle and was in position to see the driver unmistaken ably. PW 28 Loku : He said that he was travelling in a bus driven by accused at high speed. The passenger advised the accused to drive the vehicle slowly but he did not pay any attention. Three persons died in the accident and the bus in question went down the road. The accident was as a result of negligence of driver. PW 31 Hukam Singh : He stated that he was coming from Kanth to Ramnagar in the ill fated vehicle which was being driven by the accused at high speed. The vehicle met with an accident at Basi Morh. The passengers in the vehicle asked the driver to slow down the speed but the accused paid a deaf ear. Three persons died on spot and he also sustained injuries. The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver. There were more than 100 passengers in the vehicle. PW 33 Mst. Maya Devi : She has stated that she was travelling in ill fated bus being driven by the accused at high speed. Three persons died on spot and he also sustained injuries. The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver. There were more than 100 passengers in the vehicle. PW 33 Mst. Maya Devi : She has stated that she was travelling in ill fated bus being driven by the accused at high speed. The passengers asked the driver to slow down the speed but he did not pay any attention to the protest of the passengers. The bus met with an accident at Bassi Morh and four persons died on spot. She also sustained injuries on her arm. Who was responsible for the accident cannot stated by her. PW 34 Mst. Rano : She has stated that a bus met with an accident at Basi. She also sustained injuries and the accident was caused due to the negligence of driver. She cannot identify the driver. The vehicle was being driven fast and the passengers even protested to the driver to slow down the vehicle. PW 35 Banto : He does not know the driver. The bus met with an accident and he sustained injuries. PW 36 Rano: The ill fated bus was going from Kulwanta to Ramnagar which met with an accident at Gundya. PW 37 Amar Nath : He stated that ill fated bus was being driven by accused at high speed. It met with an accident at Bassi. He also sustained injuries. The vehicle was going fast which resulted in the accident. PW 38 Bodh Raj : He stated that a vehicle met with an accident at Gundiya. The vehicle was fast and the passengers protested but the driver was unmoved. He also sustained injuries in the accident. PW 45 Dr. S.K. Raina : He stated that he conducted the post mortem of the deceased Sukhdeve Kumar, Shankar Dass, Sham Lal on 22.11.1999. In case of Sukhdev Kumar and Sham Lal, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock. He has admitted the correctness of EXPM3. PW 46 Dr. Ved Parkash : He stated that he conducted the post mortem, the deceased Sukhinder Kumar and the cause of death was head injury and he also conducted the post mortem of Shankar Dass and Sudesh Kumar and Sham Lal. He admitted the correctness of EXPM1 and EXPM4. PW Dr. Dinesh Khajuria : He is Radiologist. PW 46 Dr. Ved Parkash : He stated that he conducted the post mortem, the deceased Sukhinder Kumar and the cause of death was head injury and he also conducted the post mortem of Shankar Dass and Sudesh Kumar and Sham Lal. He admitted the correctness of EXPM1 and EXPM4. PW Dr. Dinesh Khajuria : He is Radiologist. He examined the Xray film of Madan Lal who had fracture of lower shaft or both bones of lesft legs. He also examine the Xray films o Bodh Raj, Roshan Singh, Maya Devi, Joginder, Parshotam, Sundiro Devi, Pawan Kumar, Julfi Ram, Charag Din, Ashok Kumar, Baldev, Geeta Devi, Gouri Shankar, Mohan Lal, Rano Devi, Hukam Singh. All these injured had injuries on different parts of their bodies, Some had minor injuries and some major. He admits the correctness of EXPM1 to EXPM17. PW 48 Dr. M.H. Malik : He conducted the post mortem of deceased Baldev on 6.12.1999 and cause of death was respiratory failure due to internal Hammorage. He has issued EXPL1 and has admitted it to be correct. PW 49 Dr. Rajesh Gupta : He has examined the Shanoo Devi, Madan Lal, Bodh Raj, Maya Devi, Surinder Singh, Pawan, Charag Din, Ashok Kumar, Geeta Devi, Gouri Shankar, Joginder Singh, Mohan Lal, Sher Singh and Hukam Singh who had simple as well as grievous injuries on their persons. He has admitted the correctness of EXPW 49(1) to EXPW 49(16). He has also stated that all the injured are possible due to a vehicular accident and also by a fall. This is the evidence of prosecution. 10. Court of JMIC Ram Nagar has held that facts, emerged from evidence produced by prosecution, clearly establishes that accused was driving the Bus no.7511 on relevant day & time; it was overloaded; diver/accused was driving it speedily; the passengers even protested to slow down the speed, but driver did not agree; the vehicle met with the accident with the result 3/4 persons died and many injured. 11. I have also gone through the evidence. 12. Bare perusal of statements of PWS Jagdev Singh, Gouri Shanker, Mst. 11. I have also gone through the evidence. 12. Bare perusal of statements of PWS Jagdev Singh, Gouri Shanker, Mst. Shanno, Zulfi Ram, Chirag Din, Mohan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Parshotam Dass, Loku, Hukam Singh, Maya Devi, Amar Nath and Mst Rano have stated that driver-accused was driving the offending vehicle Bus in high speed and was carrying 60/70 passengers; due to act of driver mishap took place in which 4/5 persons died and many were injured. It has also come in evidence that some witnesses asked accused to slow down the bus, but he said that he knows his job of driving. These all were injured witnesses having no animosity with accused/petitioner. The testimony of injured witnesses, in same incident carries most value than any other witness. 13. In AIR 2017 SC 2600 in case titled Chandrasekar and Anr. Vs. State with Balasubramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it is held as under :- “10. Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weight age to the evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence as it presumes that he was speaking the truth unless shown otherwise. Though the law is well settled and precedents abound, reference may usefully be made to Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: "28. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone." 14. PWS Doctors Sudesh Kumar, Amrik Singh, M.H. Malik and Ved Parkash, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Sukhdev Singh, Shanker Dass, Sham lal, Sudesh Kumar, Baldev and Madan Singh, have categorically stated that death of deceased in the case is due to respiratory failure due to internal hemorrhage. The history of death has been mentioned as RTA (Road Traffic Accident). PWs Doctors, who have examined the injured, have also stated that injuries sustained by injured could be possible by vehicular accident. So I do not find any perversity of facts in the finding recorded by both the court below. 15. The argument of counsel for petitioner that no witness has stated that accused was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. So I do not find any perversity of facts in the finding recorded by both the court below. 15. The argument of counsel for petitioner that no witness has stated that accused was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. The rash and negligent words are technical words used in section 279 RPC, a layman and rustic person would not know these words. So court has to infer the rashness and negligent act from attending circumstances. Both courts below have taken note of this argument and there is no infirmity in finding in the regard. 16. Main argument of counsel for petitioner is that I/O has not been examined. Now law is settled that when the creditability of eye witnesses have not been shaken by defense and no material contradiction has been found in the prosecution case, than non examination of I/O would not be fatal for prosecution case. Appellant court has relied on AIR 2000 SC1582. As per section 134 of evidence Act, only quality of witnesses is required and not quantity. So this argument also does not hold good. 17. Next argument is that expert mechanic who examined the offending vehicle has not been examined. I have also considered this aspect of matter. Bare perusal of charge sheet and statement of accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C., it is evident it was not a defense of petitioner/accused that vehicle was defective or due to mechanical fault, accident occurred. Law is clear that accused has to make out defense right from the start of trial. 18. Negligence in driving the bus and death of the passengers and injuries caused to surviving passengers, was a question of fact which depends for its determination on appreciation of the evidence. While the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Udhampur arrived on assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased persons ad injuries caused to passengers, was caused by negligent driving of bus by the accused. 19. From the perusal of both judgements, I find that the trial Court and the appellate 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. There is no perversity in impugned judgements. I have gone through the citation produced by counsel for petitioner. There is no manifest error in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence. There is no perversity in impugned judgements. I have gone through the citation produced by counsel for petitioner. These judgements have been passed in different set of circumstances. 20. Hence this Criminal Revision petition is dismissed. Judgement & sentence passed by JMIC Ramnagar, which has been upheld by Sessions Judge Udhampur, are upheld. File of Court below be sent back. One copy of this order be also sent to JMIC Ramnagar with direction to arrest the petitioner for undergoing rest of sentences.