IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2840 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.575/2006 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1555/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- JOHNY, S/O.CHACKO, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 2840 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.1555 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 279 and 337 IPC. He challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.575 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two weeks. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Revision petitioner was the driver of KSRTC bus TA 310 on 23.11.2001. While revision petitioner was driving the bus along the public road, at the scene of occurrence, the bus hit on PW1, the injured causing hurt evidenced by Ext.P2 wound Crrp 2840/2007 2 certificate and the evidence of PW3, the Doctor, who prepared the wound certificate. Prosecution case is that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by revision petitioner and he thereby committed offence under Section 279 and 337 IPC. Though revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, learned Magistrate, on the evidence of PW1, injured and PW2, autorikshaw driver, eye witness to the incident, found that the bus hit on PW1 only due to his rash and negligent driving. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner is that courts below should not have accepted the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and instead, should have found that the incident occurred not due to any rash and negligent driving of the bus by revision petitioner, but due to the negligence of the injured, PW1, who suddenly crossed the road to fetch the autorikshaw. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The fact that revision petitioner was the driver of the KSRTC bus was not disputed. The fact that PW1 sustained injury evidenced by Ext.P2 wound certificate and the evidence of PW3 is also not challenged. The only question is whether the Crrp 2840/2007 3 incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by revision petitioner or by the negligent crossing of the road by PW1 as claimed by revision petitioner. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of PW1 corroborated by the evidence of PW2, the autorikshaw driver and found that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and it is due to such rash and negligent driving the bus hit on PW1. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. Evidence therefore establish that revision petitioner committed the offences under Section 279 and 337 IPC. As learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine, that too, to Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 279 and Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337 IPC, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk