IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 190 of 1999() -------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.96/97 OF SESSIONS COURT, TRISSUR ST.NO.3355/93 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. ................. REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.KIZHAKKUMCHERY VETTIL MANI, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KALLUR. BY ADVS. MR.G.PRABHAKARAN, MR.S.KRISHNAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 190 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.A.96/97. That appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.3355/93 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty u/s 279 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year u/s 338 and no separate sentence was passed u/s 279 IPC. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence from one year to six months and disposed of the appeal. It is against that decision the present revision is filed. 2. The point that arises for determination are; (1) Whether the revision petitioner's conviction is sustainable? (2) What is the proper order as to sentence? Cr.R.P. 190 OF 1999 -:2:- Points: 3. The revision petitioner was a driver of a bus bearing Reg.No.KLB-2367 which was plying on the Irinjalakuda – Chalakudy road. At 1.30 p.m. on 17.2.93 while the bus was coming from north to south had collided with another bus driven by PW7 bearing Reg.No.KRH 3000 thereby causing injuries to the passengers in the buses. Thus the prosecution was initiated. A perusal of the judgments would reveal that both PWs.1 and 2 are the passengers in a bus bearing Reg.No.KRH 3000. PW1 is an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India who had sustained multiple fracture on the right hand. He had deposed before Court that the accused had driven the bus with a tremendous speed and the other bus was also coming with the same speed and near a sharp curve both the buses collided resulting in injuries to the passengers in both the buses. PW2 was another passenger who had sustained fracture on the right hand. He also spoken about the speed at which the buses were coming and also stated that neither of the drivers had sounded horn. PW3 who is the son of PW2 also supported the case of the prosecution. The conductor of Cr.R.P. 190 OF 1999 -:3:- both the buses had identified the accused as the driver of the bus. The appellate court had considered the scene of occurrence in its judgment in paragraph 8. The offending bus which was driven by the revision petitioner was proceeding from north to south. The road was having a width of 5.60 mtrs. and the accident had taken place at 3.25 mtrs. East of the western tarred end. So the scene of occurrence would indicate that the bus driven by the revision petitioner was on the proper side but the learned Judge found that there were tyre marks to the effect that the bus has proceeded to a distance of 35 mtrs. after the occurrence. So also the other bus had travelled further 10 mtrs. after the accident. So one can visualize that both the drivers had driven at a high speed and were not able to control the buses which resulted in the collision of the buses in the middle of the road resulting in injuries to the passengers. So I find that the findings rendered by the Court below that the accused as well as the driver of the other bus had driven the buses very fast, rashly and negligently and also the finding that the other bus driver was on the wrong side as well, does not call for any interference. Therefore there is no ground Cr.R.P. 190 OF 1999 -:4:- to interfere with the finding that accused had also driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life thereby attracting the offences u/Ss.279 and 388 IPC. 4. The next is regarding the sentence. The learned counsel very persuasively submitted before the Court that in the appeal preferred by the driver of the bus KLR 3000 the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reduce the sentence of imprisonment into that of fine whereas in this case the driver had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 6 months which indicate that they have not been treated at par for the purpose of sentence. There is some force in the said contention. A reading of the judgment of the appellate judge makes it very clear that the present revision petitioner was on the correct side though he was driving the vehicle rash and negligently. On the other hand the other driver was on a wrong side and he had also failed to stop the bus instantaneously. I feel this accused has also to be treated in par with the other accused for the purpose of sentence. I am informed that the revision petitioner is undergoing imprisonment from 16.6.09. I feel interest of justice can be made by reducing the sentence to that he had already Cr.R.P. 190 OF 1999 -:5:- undergone by this time with a further direction to pay a maximum fine of Rs.1,000/- each u/s 279 and 338 IPC. In the result Crl. Revision is disposed of as follows. (1) The conviction and sentence passed u/s 279 and 338 IPC are confirmed. (2) The sentence is modified whereby the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period which he has already undergone by this time and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each u/s 279 and 338 IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. (3) If he pays off the fine amount, then he can be released forthwith. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Cr.R.P. 190 OF 1999 -:6:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. No. 190 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 25th June, 2009