Judgment:
ORDER
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This revision-petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.1999, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Bhiwani, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 03.03.1998 and the order of sentence dated 04.03.1998, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, convicting the accused for the offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and awarding him sentence for various terms of imprisonment.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 13.03.1993, at about 5.00/6.00 p.m. Suresh Kumar, complainant and Krishan Kumar, an eye witness, were standing on the road side. They were talking to each other. In the meanwhile, Kuldeep, nephew of Suresh Kumar, complainant, was seen going towards Dadri Gate, on the correct side of the road. A truck bearing registration No. HR-7827, came from Dadri Gate side, at a very fast speed, and hit against Kuldeep, who was run over. Kuldeep died, at the spot, on account of the injuries, sustained by him, in the said accident. Jitu alias Jitender Kumar, accused, slipped away from spot, after leaving his truck.
3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered. Inquest report of the dead body of Kuldeep was prepared. Post mortem examination, on the dead body of Kuldeep, was conducted. The spot was inspected by the Investigating Officer. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.
4. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sandeep Kumar, (PW-1), Charan Dass, Mechanic, (PW-2), Krishan Kumar, (PW-3), Ved Parkash, (PW-4), Suresh, Constable, (PW-5), Dr. D.S. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, (PW-6), Tek Chand, (PW-7), (wrongly numbered as PW-6), and Suresh Kumar, (PW-8), (wrongly numbered as PW-7). Thereafter, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence, as no other witness appeared, despite granting a number of opportunities.
6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the accused/appellant, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1999, by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
9. Still dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition was filed by the revision-petitioner.
10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the findings of the Courts below that the accused was guilty of the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, are perverse and erroneous, based on the misreading of evidence. He further submitted that Suresh Kumar, complainant, (PW-7), did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the Courts below were wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence on the sole testimony of Krishan Kumar, an eye witness, which was not reliable. He further submitted that there were contradictions between the statements of Krishan Kumar, (PW-3), and Satbir Singh, (PW-6), which were not taken into consideration, by the Courts below, resulting into miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the Courts below rightly recorded the conviction and awarded sentence to the revision-petitioner, the substantive sentence may be reduced, to the minimum.
12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Courts below were right in placing reliance, on the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Krishan Kumar, an eye witness, (PW-3), to come to the conclusion, that, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck, by the revision-petitioner, the accident took place, leading to the death of Kuldeep. He further submitted that the contradictions pointed out, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, occurring in the statements of Krishan Kumar,(PW-3), and Satbir Singh, ASI, (PW-6), prosecution witnesses, being insignificant, were rightly ignored by the Courts below. He further submitted that the findings of the Courts below, that the accused was guilty of the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, do not warrant any interference.
13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contentions advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stand rejected. The Courts below, recorded concurrent findings, on due appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Krishan Kumar, an eye-witness (PW-3) that the accused was rash or negligent, in driving the truck, which struck against Kuldeep, resulting into injuries, and leading to his death, at the spot. No doubt, Suresh Kumar, complainant, (PW-7), did not support the case of the prosecution. In the present scenario prevailing, in the society, the witnesses are bound to cave under the threats, pressure, or allurements of the accused and resile from their previous statements, so as to save him (accused). It appears that, on account of this reason, Suresh Kumar, complainant, (PW-7) did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be taken into consideration by the Court, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, a particular case was proved or not. The evidence of Krishan Kumar, an eye witness, (PW-3), as stated above, was found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy by the Courts below. Implicit reliance on the evidence of this witness, was rightly placed by the Courts below, to come to the conclusion, that the accused committed the offences, with which he was charged. The mere fact that Suresh Kumar, complainant, did not support the case of the prosecution, in itself, was not sufficient to cast a doubt, on the case. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. A careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, in context of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not in any way indicate, that the findings of guilt, recorded, are in any way perverse, illegal or erroneous, on account of the misreading of evidence. Under these circumstances, there is no warrant to interfere with the same. The findings recorded by the Courts below, are liable to be upheld.
14. The contradiction, pointed out by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, to the effect that Satbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-6) stated that Suresh Kumar and Krishan came to him to report the accident, whereas, Krishan Kumar, (PW-3) stated that Suresh and one Ramesh went to inform the police, about the accident, in my considered opinion, was hardly of any consequence. Such like minor and insignificant contradictions are bound to occur, in the statements of the truthfulness witnesses, on account of lapse of time and faltering of memory. The aforesaid contradiction, relates to the minor details of the case, which does not, in any way affect the merits thereof. The Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion, that such contradiction did not affect the case, in any manner. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. It was, however, submitted by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, that the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, since 13.03.1993, the date when the accident took place, i.e. for the last more than 15 years. He further submitted that lenient view may be taken, and the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioner, be reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. On account of the rash and negligent act of the revision-petitioner, a valuable life of Kuldeep, aged about 7 years, upon whom, his parents had pinned high hopes, was lost. In such like cases, no ground is made out, to reduce the sentence. The sentence, awarded to the revision-petitioner, by the Courts below, is neither harsh, nor excessive, nor in any way incommensurate with his guilt. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 03.03.1998, and the order of sentence dated 04.03.1998, rendered by the trial Court, and the judgment dated 11.10.1999, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are upheld.
17. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment promptly, in accordance with the provisions of law, on receipt of a copy thereof.