The High Court reaffirmed that its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397–401 CrPC is extremely limited to correcting patent errors, jurisdictional defects, or gross miscarriage of justice, and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by material on record. This judgment upholds the established legal position of the Supreme Court and serves as binding authority for future revision matters across subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.R/212/2012 of MOHINDER PAL Vs STATE |
| CNR | HPHC010150552012 |
| Date of Registration | 01-01-2012 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Procedural and Substantive (IPC, CrPC, MV Act) |
| Questions of Law | What is the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of High Courts under Sections 397–401 CrPC, specifically regarding reappreciation of evidence and interference with concurrent factual findings? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397–401 CrPC is supervisory in nature, limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, patent defects, or miscarriage of justice. The High Court cannot act as a second appellate court and is not justified in reassessing evidence that has already been appraised by the trial and appellate courts. Interference is permitted only where findings are perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on no material. Minor discrepancies in evidence, unless material, do not warrant revisional intervention. Concurrent findings of conviction based on consistent, credible evidence should not be disturbed in revision unless gross injustice is demonstrated. This approach promotes certainty and discourages routine revisional challenges to concurrent findings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment relies on Supreme Court authorities to interpret the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397–401 CrPC, emphasizing that revisional power is supervisory and not akin to appellate power. The Court also discusses legal standards for evaluating witness discrepancies and the policy behind deterrent sentencing under Section 304-A IPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accused, a driver, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 187 M.V. Act for negligently driving a pickup vehicle and causing the death of a 4-year-old girl. The incident took place on 24.11.2005. The trial court and appellate court both found that negligence was established by consistent witness testimony and physical evidence. The accused challenged the findings and sentence in revision, alleging improper appreciation of evidence, interested witnesses, and contradictions. The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the judgments below. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Follows |
|
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with revisional scope under Sections 397–401 CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court’s judgment provides a detailed reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s restricted approach to revisional powers — particularly, the prohibition on reappreciation of evidence unless perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or legal/jurisdictional error is demonstrated.
- The judgment clarifies that minor discrepancies in witness testimony or contradictions that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case cannot form the basis for revisional interference.
- Reliance on established authorities such as Malkeet Singh Gill and Kishan Rao reinforces the limited grounds on which revisional courts may intervene.
- Emphasizes that concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts should not be disturbed in revision in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
- Cites statutory and jurisprudential reasoning to support deterrent sentencing for offences under Section 304-A IPC, especially where the act displays callous disregard for human life.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by recapitulating the facts and concurrent findings of conviction by the trial and appellate courts for offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, and Section 187 of the M.V. Act.
- It then canvassed the scope of revisional jurisdiction by citing Supreme Court decisions, notably Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda. These authorities emphasize that revisional powers are supervisory, meant to correct patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice.
- The Court explained that reappreciation of evidence is not permitted unless findings are perverse or unsupported by material on record. It is insufficient to warrant interference merely because another view is possible.
- Arguments concerning minor discrepancies and contradictions among witnesses were rejected on the basis of precedents such as Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, which stress that such differences are natural and should not lead to jettisoning credible evidence.
- Defences raised by the accused were evaluated against the evidence, with the Court concluding there was no reason to discard the prosecution case or to view the concurrent findings as perverse.
- On sentencing, the Court cited Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh to affirm the appropriateness of a deterrent, maximum sentence in view of the accused’s conduct and societal interests.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Contended that evidence was not properly appreciated by lower courts.
- Alleged that prosecution witnesses were interested and their statements inconsistent.
- Raised absence of vehicle registration number in diary entry and absence of blood on vehicle as factors favoring the defence.
- Submitted that high speed alone does not constitute negligence and that contradictions among witnesses required acquittal.
- Relied upon various Supreme Court and High Court authorities to urge reappreciation of evidence and reduction of sentence.
Respondent (State):
- Asserted that revisionary jurisdiction is narrow and does not encompass reappreciation of evidence.
- Emphasized that concurrent findings of fact and conclusions on negligence by lower courts were correct and required no interference.
- Submitted that the accused’s pleas had been evaluated and rejected at both lower levels.
Factual Background
The case arose out of a fatal road accident on 24.11.2005 in Reckong Peo, Himachal Pradesh. The accused was driving a Mahindra pickup transporting sleepers, which allegedly left the ‘pakka’ (paved) portion of the road and hit a 4-year-old girl, causing her instantaneous death. Eyewitnesses and other evidence linked the accused and the vehicle to the incident. The accused was tried and convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with both the trial court and the appellate court upholding the finding of negligence and imposing maximum statutory sentences. The accused moved the High Court in revision, seeking to challenge the concurrent findings and sentences.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, Section 187 M.V. Act: Core substantive provisions under which the petitioner was convicted. The Court reiterated that conviction under these sections can be justified when negligence and causality are firmly established.
- Sections 397–401 CrPC: The judgment centers around the interpretation of these sections, emphasizing their supervisory, non-appellate nature and the limited scope for interference.
- The Court also referenced Section 145 and Section 155 of the Evidence Act in its discussion of witness contradictions and the significance required for impeachment of credit through inconsistent statements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies existing Supreme Court precedent regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397–401 CrPC.
Citations
- Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204
- State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294
- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460
- Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165
- State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452
- Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123
- Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197
- Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429
- Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) SCC Online SC 69
- Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82
- State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182
- Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217
- Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525
- Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327
- Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241