SATVIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A/ 279/338, Indian Penal Code by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three months on each of the offences undersections 279/338, IPC vide order of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.1997. On appeal, the petitioner's conviction under Sections 304-A/279/338, Indian Penal Code was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi but his sentence was reduced from one year to nine months vide judgment dated 22.5.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 11/97.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 31.3.1986, the petitioner, while driving the bus No. DEP-7051,in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the scooter No. DBO-3598 as a result whereof Inder Raj (Public Witness 5) and his pillion rider Neeru Gulati (wife) were thrown away on the road causing severe injuries to both. The deceased Neeru Gulati came under the rear wheel of the offending bus and died on the spot. Immediately after the alleged incident, police came to the spot and recorded the statement of Inder Raj (Public Witness 5) on the basis of which the FIR No. 188/ 86 was registered at the Police Station, Darya Ganj. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 304-A/279/338, IPC against the petitioner. On an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecu- tion, the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. On appeal, the petitioner's conviction under Sections 304-A/ 279 / 338, Indian Penal Code was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge but his sentence was reduced from one year to nine months rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of conviction and sentence has not only resulted in manifest injustice meted out to the petitioner but the same is patently illegal inasmuch as there is not an iota of evidence dfi record to prove that on the day in question the petitioner caused the death of the deceased Neeru Gulati and injuries to Inder Raj (Public Witness 5) by doing any rash or negligent act. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner, while driving the bus No. DEP-7051 at a high speed, crushed the deceased Neeru Gulati to death besides causing severe injuries to Inder Raj (Public Witness 5). It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory natures exercised by this Court for correcting miscarriage of justice and the revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court. (State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath fathavedan Namboodiri, etc., J.T. 1999 .(1) S.C. 456=ll (1999) SLT 83). Though the power to determine correctness of finding extends to a finding of fact, a Court of revision would not ordinarily re-assess evidence and interfere merely because view of the Trial Court as to evidence does not commend to itself. In other words, revision would not lie on the mere ground of misappreciation of evidence unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the revisional Court which would otherwise tantamount to flagrant miscarriage of justice. (Satyendra Nath Dutta and Another v. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580). Keeping these well settled principles of law in view, I find that the learned Magistrate has made an elaborate analysis of evidence on record. His conclusions cannot be termed to be perverse and unreasonable, considering evidence of each material witness in its material particulars. I do not find any material evidence which has been overlooked. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order of conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.