IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.344 of 2002 (B) ------------------------------------ CRA.69/1996 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.687/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- JOJO THOMAS @ JOJO, S/O.THOMAS VARKEY, PULICKAL VEEDU, KODINATTUKUNNU BHAGOM, THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.J.AMBOOKAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 ORDER The Accused convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC as also under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act is the petitioner, the appeal filed by him against the conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge as well. 2. The petitioner was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanacherry in Crime No.837/92 for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that he drove autorikshaw bearing Registration No.KL.5.A.8069 with CWs.2 and 3 as also late Ammini, W/o Joseph as passengers along the Mallappally-Changanacherry road from east to west in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at about 3.10 p.m on 31/12/92 at Kolottupady bhagom caused it to hit against an electric Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -2- post standing on the southern side of the mud road causing injuries to Cws.2 and 3 as also to the aforesaid Annamma and to himself and the said Annamma breathed her last at 3.30 p.m on the same day while undergoing treatment at Changanacherry Government Hospital on account of the grievous injuries sustained to her in the accident. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused was driving the autorikshaw without a driving licence. 3. On finding the petitioner/accused guilty of offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC as also under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a term of three months under Section 279 IPC and R.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 337 IPC and under Section 3(1) read Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -3- with Section 181 of the M.V. Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is not advancing any argument on the merits of the case, but prays only for the imprisonment portion of the sentence being set aside enhancing the fine to the maximum amount or directing compensation being awarded to the LRs of the deceased and CWs.2 and 3. He further submitted that the case is one where, about 17 years back the petitioner who was an experienced autorikshaw driver though was not having a valid driving licence happened to drive the autorikshaw and while giving side to a KSRTC bus coming in the opposite direction it happened to hit against an electric post causing injuries to the petitioner as also to CWs.2 and 3 and to the deceased; that there was ample material to show that the accident has occurred while giving side to a KSRTC bus from the 161 Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -4- statement recorded by the police though that was not made use of by the lawyer before the trial court on account of lack of experience and that in any event, the petitioner who was aged only 23 years at the time of the accident is now a daily wage labourer having also wife and children and that considering all the aspects of the case a lenient view be taken enabling the petitioner to pay any amount as ordered by this Court by way of fine or by way of compensation, setting aside however, the sentence of imprisonment awarded. 5. Heard the submissions of the Public Prosecutor as well. 6. It is seen from the final report submitted by the police that the petitioner was aged only 23 years in 1992 when the accident took place. The courts below does not appear to have applied its mind to the question as to whether the petitioner was an Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -5- experienced autorikshaw driver who was driving the vehicle though without a valid driving licence. According to the learned counsel, the case should have been appreciated in that aspect as well, as not having a valid driving licence entails only the consequence thereof. In the event of such a person driving the autorikshaw no consequence of a more serious nature should have been attached to such an offence and that the accident involved is one which could not have been averted even by a driver having a valid licence. According to the counsel, the petitioner is however, now a labourer on daily wages and that after 17 years of the occurrence he should not be compelled to undergo sentence of imprisonment so as to cause hardship under the changed circumstances to his wife and children as well. Considering the entire circumstances of the case I am of the view that it is a fit Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -6- case where sentence of imprisonment has to be set aside and the petitioner is ordered to pay the maximum fine for the offences to which he was found guilty and convicted. 7. In the result, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC and under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act, I modify the sentence awarded to the petitioner and impose a fine of Rs.1,000/- on him for offence under Section 279 IPC; a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC; a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act and a fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304(A) IPC setting aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded concurrently by the courts below. All the same, the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is maintained. Crl. R. P. No.344 of 2002 -7- 8. This Crl.R.P. is thus, disposed of. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-