Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 is limited to patent errors or perversity; cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings on rash negligent driving proved by reliable eyewitnesses despite some hostile.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.6.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 2.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 17.11.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police filed a charge sheet against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant Giano Devi (PW1), her husband Nand Lal (PW2) and Veena Devi (PW3) were standing outside Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin, on 19.2.2003 at about 4.15 PM. A car bearing registration No. HP-23-0247 came from Ghumarwin at a high speed and hit Nand Lal, who sustained injuries. The driver sped away from the spot. Informant made a statement (Ex.PW1/A) which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW10/A) was registered. ASI Surender Singh (PW11) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW11/C). Dr Arvind Tandon (PW6) conducted the medical examination of Nand Lal, who found that Nand Lal had suffered simple and grievous injuries which could have been caused within two hours of examination. He issued MLC (Ex.PW6/A). HC Prakash Chand (PW10) conducted the further investigation. He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 23-0247, along with documents vide memo (Ex.PW4/A). HHC Dev Raj (PW8) examined the vehicle and found that there was no defect in it which could have led to the accident. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Giano Devi (PW1) is the informant. Nand Lal (PW2) is the victim, Veena Devi (PW3) is an eyewitness. Roop Lal (PW4), Rakesh Kumar (PW5) and Rajesh Kumar (PW9) did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr Arvind Tandon (PW6) medically examined the victim. Satpal (PW7) is the owner of the vehicle who proved that the accused was the driver of the vehicle. HHC Dev Raj (PW8) conducted a mechanical examination of the vehicle. HC Prakash Chand (PW10) and Surender Singh (PW11) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of