LexRAJ KUMAR versus STATE OF H.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1-
I-
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 900
A
RAJ KUMAR
v.
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2001)
B
JULY 14, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR.
':
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c
ss. 397 and 401 - Revision - Power of High Court -
Explained - Trial court and High Court analysed the evidence
in detail and rightly held the accused guilty - High Court was
justified in not exercising revisional jurisdiction - Penal Code,
1-
1860 - ss. 279 and 304 A.
D
The appellant was prosecuted for commission of of-
t
~
fences u/ss 279 and 304A IPC. The case of the prosecu-
i
tion was that due to rash and negligent driving of the ap-
pellant the bus driven by him and another bus coming
E from opposite direction collided, as a result of which two
children of PW 7 travelling in the latter bus received fatal
injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant of the. of-
fences charged and sentenced him to one year's rigor-
ous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Ses-
F
sions Judges. The accused having failed in the revision
petition before the High Court, filed the instant appeal.
;oi._
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Revisional power cannot be equated with
the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even
G as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appre-
ciate the -evidence and come to its own conclusion on
~
•
the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the no-
tice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount
H
900
r
,.
.,
RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF H.P.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
to. gross miscarriage of justice. [para 8] [904-E,F]
901
State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 663;
and State of Kera/a v. Puttamana lilath Jathavedan Namboodlri
1999(1) SCR 575=1999 (2) SCC 452 - relied on.
A
Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration AIR 1975 SC 1960 -
B
referred to.
1.2. In the instant case, the trial Court and the appel.1
late 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 evi- c·
dence. That being so, the High Court was justified in law
in not exercising revisional jurisdiction. {par• 9] [904-F,G]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTl_O~·:.Crihlinal Ap_pe.I .·
No. 1135 of 2001
·
From the final Judgment and Order' dated 1B.7.2000 of:
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CrL Revision r
·No. 8.of1999 ·
D·
Aftab Ali Khan, Anjum Ahmed and Goodwill lndeevar for E
the Appellant.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
F
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court dismissing the criminal revision filed. by the appel-
lant. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie,
District Chamba, H.P. had convicted the appellant for offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal. G
Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo
simple-imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000/
~
- with default stipµJation for the offence relatable to Section 304A ·
and simple imprisonment for three months for the other offence.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Sessions
Judge, Chamba, was dismissed.
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 10 S.C.R.
t-
A
2. A revision petitionwas filed before the High Court ques-
..._
B
tioning conviction as well as sentence, which as noted above
was dismissed.
3. The pr:osecution version as.unfolded during trial is.as
follows:
On 16.6.1990, one Shri Mast Ram (PW-7) was travelling
in bus bearing registration No.HTC 34 belonging to Himachal
Road Transport Corporation (in short 'HRTC') alongwith his wife
and four children from Surgani to Pathankot. On the way, at Tu nu
c Hatti, bus No.PJC-4075 belonging to P.unjab Roadways was
coming from the opposite direction being driven by the appel-
lant. It was alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle by the appellant, the vehicle struck against the HRTC
Bus due to which Master Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeswari,
son and daughter of Shri Mast Ram respectively sustained fa-
D tal head in)uries. The accident took place around 12.45 p.m.
The accident was reported to the police by Mast Ram whose
statement was recorded by the police Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.