A revisional court is not an appellate court and it cannot substitute its conclusion to the one arrived at by two courts just because another view is possible: The High Court of Delhi
In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. 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 reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise be tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. The aforementioned has been relied upon by the Delhi High Court while adjudicating the case of Ram Kishan V. The State [CRL.REV.P.659/2018] which was decided by the single judge bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad on 25th June 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. In 2010, an accident took place whereby a bus came from Badarpur side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the right side of the bus against one motorcycle. The occupants of motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. There were two persons on the motorcycle. The bus driver tried to flee from the spot. PCR van reached on the spot and removed one of the injured who was alive to Apollo hospital and the other person who had already passed away was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR van through HC Bhim Singh. The bus was chased and stopped by public near Police Station Sarita Vihar. The bus driver fled the spot. Photograph of the site, body of the deceased, offending vehicle and the motorcycle were taken from the spot. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Based on the statement of PW-1, FIR No.162/2010 was registered. The second occupant of the motorcycle who had been taken to the hospital also passed away. The bus driver was given a simple imprisonment of 6 months and 2 years under the particular sections. The same has been challenged in the instant petition.
The court conducted a perusal of the facts and arguments and relied on several judgments including the those in the cases of State of Haryana v. Rajmal & Anr reported as (2011) 14 SCC 326, State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 etc. to arrive on the decision that “Two persons have died in the accident. No one can and much less persons driving roadways buses can be permitted to drive in rash and negligent manner so as to put the lives of the passengers and other persons in danger. This Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 368 CrPC to the petitioner and reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the court below. The revision petition is dismissed. Bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled, and the petitioner is directed to surrender within four weeks from today.”