IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 309 of 2001() ------------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.181/1994 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN CC.NO.56/94 OF JFCM, MALAPPURAM) ................ REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PANAY ASHARAF, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THARAYITTAL, KARIPPOOR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.309 of 2001 - A ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 337 and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court, and it is impeached in this revision. 2. The revision petitioner was one of the drivers of two jeeps which collided and caused injuries to several passengers in the vehicles. The revision petitioner was driving the vehicle from north to south and the other vehicle came from the opposite direction. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exts.P1 to P14 to bring home the guilt of the accused. PWs 1 to Crl.R.P.No.309 of 2001 2 7 were passengers in the other jeep and all of them except PW3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW3 in his evidence stated that the occurrence arose out of the culpable negligence of the revision petitioner overtaking a lorry going in front of his vehicle, which resulted in collision with the jeep in which he travelled. His evidence was found reliable and convincing both to the trial court and also the appellate court to found a conviction against the accused. Another circumstance relied to found the conviction against the accused is the features evidenced by the mahazar prepared over the site of occurrence. Ext.P12 mahazar indicated that the occurrence took place at a distance of 4 meters from the eastern tar end of a road where the road width was only 5.15 meters. Revision petitioner driving the jeep from north to south was on the wrong side, as mentioned in Ext.P12 mahazar, was found reliable and acceptable. On these two material circumstances, the conviction was entered against the accused. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting my attention to the materials contended that the conclusion so formed is not correct. The Crl.R.P.No.309 of 2001 3 jurisdiction conferred on the revisional authority to reappreciate the evidence is limited and it can be resorted to only in a case where it is found that the finding entered is so perverse and totally unsupported by the evidence on record. In case the evidence of PW3 as corroborated by the circumstance under Ext.P12 mahazar is reliable, then of course, the challenge against the conviction must fail. It is noticed that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that implicit reliance is not permissible on the evidence of PW3, the solitary eye witness by the prosecution, cannot be brushed aside as meritless. PW3 has stated in his evidence during the course of chief examination that the occurrence took place when the jeep driven by the accused overtook a lorry. On that material circumstance, it has come out in cross-examination that he had not stated so before the police when his statement was recorded during the investigation. Omission of that material aspect in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be considered as insignificant in appreciating the merit of the conviction imposed against the accused. When implicit evidence on PW3 is Crl.R.P.No.309 of 2001 4 not possible, and leaving that only the features evidenced by Ext.P12 mahazar alone is available, which no doubt indicate that the jeep driven by the accused was on the wrong side of the road as and when the occurrence took place, that is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences charged. I find that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused, and hence they are liable to be set aside. I do so. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences charged against him. This criminal revision petition is allowed setting aside the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-