Important Point
High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of the courts below unless any glaring feature is brought to its notice which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellant. 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 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 stipulation 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.

2.A revision petition was filed before the High Court questioning conviction as well as sentence, which as noted above was dismissed.

3.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :

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 Tunu Hatti, bus No.PJC-4075 belonging to Punjab Roadways was coming from the opposite direction being driven by the appellant. 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 fatal head injuries. 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 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 the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased Manoj Kumar and Kumari Rajeswari lying on the seat inside the HRTC Bus. Photographs Negatives Exbts.PW-3/H to PW-3/C were placed on record. During recording of the statements of the material witnesses by PW Kishore Kumar, it was found that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant in which heads of both the victims were crushed. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was laid against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC before the trial Magistrate.

The Trial Magistrate found the evidence to be cogent. Relying on the evidence of father (PW7) and considering the other material on record, the Trial Court recorded the conviction 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 Sessions Judge questioning grant of benefit under the Probation Act. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the Order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter for passing appropriate sentence. Thereafter, as noted above, the learned Trial Magistrate sentenced the appellant by imposing custodial sentence and fine.

4.The basic stand taken before the High Court in support of the revision petition was that no evidence was led by the prosecution that the accident was as result of rash and negligent driving of the appellant. It was submitted that the driver of HRTC Bus was negligent in driving which resulted in the accident. The High Court considered the limited scope for interference in exercise of the 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