IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 65 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.274/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA CC.106/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- K. ASEES, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, PANAMARAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.65 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. The sentence imposed under Section 337 I.P.C was set aside by the appellate court. The petitioner, in addition to the sentence of fine, faces a substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 279 I.P.C and one year under Section 338 I.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he drove a motorcycle along the public road on 16.12.03 in a rash and negligent manner after having consumed alcohol and on account of such rashness and negligence knocked against the victim girl PW1, aged 12 years, who was walking along the extreme left hand side of the road, causing grievous hurt to her. 3. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. The accused denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and proved Exts.P1 to P8. PW1 is the victim. Pws 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses, a couple residing in the neighbourhood. Pws 4 and 5 Crl.R.P.No.65 of 2008 2 are doctors who examined the victim as also the accused and his pillion rider and issued Exts.P2 to P4. Ext.P1 is the F.I statement lodged. Pws 6 and 7 are the police officials who had roles to play in the registration of the crime, its investigation and the filing of the charge sheet. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 4. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 does inherently inspire confidence in the light of Exts.P1 to P6. Accordingly the courts below came to the conclusion that the evidence of PWS 1 to 3 when believed is sufficient to drive home the charges under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 5. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly, it appears to me, does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. I have gone through the impugned judgments. I find that the courts below are eminently justified in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of Pws 1 to 3, which evidence satisfactorily establishes the guilt of the accused under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.65 of 2008 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the sentence imposed is excessive. The petitioner has been continuing in prison for a period exceeding 7 months now, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 338 I.P.C may be modified and reduced, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having rendered my anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, I find merit in that request by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The incident occurred in 2003. The petitioner was a person aged about 31 years when he faced trial. Of course, there is the allegation that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and was driving the vehicle though there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner was under the hands of alcohol. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, I am satisfied that leniency can be shown on the question of sentence. 8. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The appellate judgment is upheld in all other respects; Crl.R.P.No.65 of 2008 4 c) But the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 338 I.P.C is reduced from a period of one year to a period of 7 months; d) It is further directed that the sentences imposed under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C shall run concurrently. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P.No.65 of 2008 5