Holding

The High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction as there was no manifest error in the trial court's findings.

Summary

Raj Kumar, a bus driver, was convicted under IPC sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) after a collision caused the deaths of two children. The trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine; the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal, and the High Court rejected his revision petition. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent driving and that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC ss. 397 and 401, noting that a revisional court cannot re‑appreciate evidence unless a gross miscarriage of justice is evident. It held that the trial and appellate courts had duly analyzed the evidence and that no manifest error existed, so the High Court was correct in refusing to intervene. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to re‑appreciate evidence in a criminal case absent a glaring error or miscarriage of justice.
Whether the evidence on record established the elements of IPC sections 279 and 304A against the appellant.
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are legally sustainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 279, s. 304A
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Subjects

criminal revisionrevisional jurisdictionrash drivingnegligent drivingIPC 279IPC 304Aevidence appraisalHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

1--
I-

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 900

A RAJ KUMAR
v.
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2001)
JULY 14, 2008
B ':
[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
1-
justified in not exercising revisional jurisdiction - Penal Code,
1860 - ss. 279 and 304 A.
D t
The appellant was prosecuted for commission of of- ~

i
fences u/ss 279 and 304A IPC. The case of the prosecu-
tion was that due to rash and negligent driving of the ap-
pellant the bus driven by him and another bus coming
from opposite direction collided, as a result of which two
E 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-
sions Judges. The accused having failed in the revision
F 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
RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF H.P. 901
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

to. gross miscarriage of justice. [para 8] [904-E,F] A
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.
r
,. ., 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 · D·
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 ·
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- ..._
tioning conviction as well as sentence, which as noted above
was dismissed.
3. The pr:osecution version as.unfolded during trial is.as
follows:
B
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 under Section 154 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') marked
E' Ext.PW-7/A. On the basis of the statement of the complainant,
formal first information report came to be registered at Police
Station, Dalhousie on the same day at about 3.15 P.M. Head
Constable Kishore Kumar (PW-8) Visited the spot immediately
and prepared spot map Exbt.PW-8/A and summoned Sarwan
Singh (PW-3) photographer who clicked the photographs of both
F the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased Manoj Kumar and
Kumari Raje~wari lying on the seat inside the HRTC Bus. Pho-
tographs Negatives Exbts.PW-3/H to PW-3/C were placed on
record. During recording of the statements of the material wit-
nesses by PW Kishore Kumar, it was found that the accident
G h,ad taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
v~hicle by the appellant in which heads of both the victims were
crushed. After completion of the investiga!ion charge sheet was
laid against the appellant for offence pu_nishable under Sections
279 and 304-A IPC before the trial Magistrate.
H
RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF H.P. 903
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
• The Trial Magistrate found the evidence to be cogent. A
Relying on the evidence of father (PW?) and considering t~e
other material on record, the Trial Court recorded the convic-
tion as noted above. But the appellant was extended the benefit
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short 'Probation Act').
The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before the Ses-
1
B
sions Judge questioning grant of benefit under the Probation Adt.
Learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial Court
and remitted the matter for passing appropriate sentence. There-
... after, as noted above, the learned Trial Magistrate sentenced the
appellant by imposing custodial sentence and fine.
c
4. The basic stand taken before the High Court in support of

- ~
the revision petition was that no evidence was led by the prosecu-
tion that the accident was as result of rash and negligent driving of
the appellant. It was submitted that the driver of HRTC Bus wa~
negligent in driving which resulted in the accident. The High Court
considered the limited scope for interference in exercise of the
D
revisional jurisdiction and the revision. The High Court analysed
the factual position to conclude that the findings recorded by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not erroneous.
· 5. In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the appel-
E
lant submitted that the basic requirements to attract Sections 279
and 304A has not been established. Alternatively, it was submit-
ted that the sentence is harsh. The accident took place about two
decades back and the appellant has already suffered custody of
som~ period and even if the conviction is maintained the sen'-
~. tence should be reduced to the period already undergone. F
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment of the courts below.
''

7. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1975 SC
1960), the scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court in G
criminal revision was examined and it was held in a case in·
volving vehicular accident as follows:
,_

"The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence
in driving the buJ and death of the deceased was caused
due to negligent driving is a question of fact which depends H
9:04 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 .decea&ed was caused by negligent-
drJving of bus by the accused and the High Court even
·B 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 findmg 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
c 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 inter-
fered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court
D and the Sessions ,·Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
when there was no ~error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial
Courf or the Sessions Judge. In State of Kera/a v. Puttamana
I/lath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1.999 (2) SCC 452) it was held
·that the revis.ional jurisdiction is one of.supervisory jurisdiction
E · exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of jus-
tice. 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
F feature is brought to the· notice of the High Court which would
otherwise tantamo!-mt 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
G the guilt of the accused. There is no manifest error in the conclu-
sions 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.

H B.P. Appeal dismissed.