IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 586 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO.336/05 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO.1, THRISSUR. C.C.NO.726 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF JFMC KODUNGALLUR REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- DHANESH, S/O.BHARATHAN, SARKARA HOUSE EDAMUTTOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SI OF POLICE VALAPPAD POLICE STATION (THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced concurrently for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as unraveled by the oral and documentary evidence is the following:- The revision petitioner/ accused was driving a jeep from west to east along the Edamuttom-Kazhimbram beach road on 18.5.03 at about 3.30p.m. When the jeep reached at Edamuttam Centre it ran over the dorsum of the left foot of PW1 from a spot situated about 66 c.ms to the south of the northern tarred edge of the said road which is having a total width of 4 metres for its tarred portion. 3. Out of the three prosecution witnesses PW1, the injured and PW3 a relative of PW1 supported the prosecution. PW2, the other independent eye witness turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2008 2 endangering human life. The defense version was that the occurrence took place on account of the sudden crossing of road by PW1. Going by the factual situation revealed by the Scene Mahazar it cannot be said that the revision petitioner was on the wrong side of the road. The jeep was situated only 66 cms to the south of the south of the northern edge of the tarred portion of the road. It being a beach road in a remote area, one cannot except any crowd also at the relevant time. Even if the revision petitioner is found to have been driving the jeep in a high speed, speed by itself cannot amount to negligence unless the situation warrants extreme care and extreme low speed. But at the same time, since the accused was the man behind the wheels, he had the last opportunity to avert the mishap. So viewed, the conviction recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be wrong or unsustainable. This Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said finding which has been entered by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2008 3 4. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration. I am of view that an adequate compensation to the victim and a direction to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 279 IPC, the revision petitioner is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. For the conviction under Section 338 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) of which a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall pay the total amount of compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) within one month from today. If the compensation is not Crl.R.P.No.586 of 2008 4 paid within 30 days from today, the revision petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge