Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC limits High Court to correcting patent defects or perversity; cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent conviction absent jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant Ameen Khan (PW1), Mauj Deen, Atro Bibi (PW13), Saleema (PW3), Lal Hussain (PW2) and Sadiq Ali (since deceased) were taking their buffaloes from Jhandoli Dinanagar to Kalaban. They were moving near Banikhet Helipad on 22.5.2006 at about 9.30 AM, when a Scorpio bearing registration No.PB-07N-0074 came at a high speed and hit Sadiq Ali. Sadiq Ali fell on the spot and became unconscious. He was taken to PHC Banikhet. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Scorpio bearing registration No. PB-07N-0074. The matter was reported to the police. An entry in the daily diary (Ex.PW6/A) was registered in the Police Station. HC Roop Singh (PW10) went for the verification of the entry. He recorded the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the informant as per his version and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW10/A) was registered. He filed an application (Ex.PW10/C) for obtaining the MLC of the injured; however, Doctor Vinay Patial (PW11) declared the injured to be dead. Inquest report (Ex.PW10/D) was prepared. An application (Ex.PW10/E) was filed for conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased. Dr Maan Singh (PW7) conducted the postmortem examination and issued the report (Ex.PW7/A) mentioning that the deceased had died from a head injury leading to cardio-respiratory arrest and death. ASI Roop Singh (PW10) prepared the site plan (Ex.PW10/F) and took the photographs (Ex.PW10/G1 to Ex.PW10/G9) whose negatives are Ex. PW10/G10 to Ex.PW10/G18. A message was sent to Tunnuhatti Barrier regarding the accident. HHC Arun Kumar (PW12) and ASI Ravi Kumar (PW14) were posted at the Barrier. They intercepted the Scorpio bearing registration No. PB-07N- 0074 and found that the front glass of the Scorpio was damaged. They handed over the vehicle to Roop Singh (PW10), who seized it. Kishori Lal (PW8) mechanically examined the Scorpio and found no defect in the vehicle that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW8/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient re