IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4 of 2000(P) ---------------------------- CRA.159/93 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI C.C.271/90 OF CJM, MANJERI REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.SREEDHARAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, POOVAKATTIL HOUSE, KAVUNGIKKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.4/2000 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.271/1990 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, who was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, is the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition. The trial Court convicted him for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 19.4.1990, the accused was driving a lorry bearing registration No.TNG.9995, in a rash and negligent manner along the Calicut-Malappuram Public road. Crl.R.P.4/2000 2 The lorry was proceeding from west to east. When it reached near a Mosque at Pookottur, it hit against Kunnathu Moideen, who was trudging on the northern side of the road pushing a bicycle. The vehicle ran over the deceased. Driver did not stop the vehicle after the incident. Later, the vehicle was taken into custody and as evidenced by Ext.P8, G.V.R, the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. That the vehicle had proceeded from west to east and had hit the bicycle from the rear, was spoken to by PWs1 and 2, eye witnesses. Ext.P3 scene mahazar was proved through PW4 and the seizure of the vehicle, as per Ext.P4, was proved by PW5. PW10, the Investigating Officer, spoke about the material aspects of the investigation. That the vehicle did not suffer from any mechanical defect at the time of the accident, was spoken to by PW9, the motor vehicle Inspector. Ext.P8 goods vehicle record was proved by PW10. While being examined under Section 313, though the accused had denied the other aspects put to him, he accepted that he was the driver of the Crl.R.P.4/2000 3 vehicle at the time of the accident. It is on the basis of the above, that the trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The nature of the accident is spoken to by PWs 1 and 2. Though an attempt was made to make it appear that the deceased Moideen had fallen on the road when a 'thorthumundu' worn by him got entangled in the wheels of the bicycle, the courts below rightly did not believe the same. PWs1 and 2 consistently testified that Moideen, the deceased, was pushing the bicycle and this was on account of the fact that there was a gradient in that area. Accident took place at 4.30. p.m and therefore, lack of visibility could not have been the reason for the accident. That the deceased was proceeding from west to east and the vehicle was also in the same direction and that the accident had taken Crl.R.P.4/2000 4 place when the vehicle had hit the bicycle on the rear, are all factors which have been proved by the prosecution and which will therefore, support the finding that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is not a matter of insignificance that the driver did not stop the vehicle after the impact. 5. For all these reasons, I do not find any error in the conviction of the accused under Section 304A read with Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Evidence has been correctly appreciated by the Courts below and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that the sentence imposed on the accused is excessive and warrants interference. I do not think that a sentence of imprisonment can be completely avoided in circumstances where a man has lost his life and the driver did not stop the vehicle after the impact. I heard Crl.R.P.4/2000 5 learned Public Prosecutor also in this regard. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence of six months' RI would suffice for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. 7. In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused under Sections 304A and 279 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused under Section 304A is modified from one year RI to six months' RI. The sentence as regards other aspects will remain. Subject to the above, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs