IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3372 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.328/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE CC.580/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHALIYODATH SREEDHARAN, THANKAPURI, R.E.C., CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 601. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAN M.K., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VELU, MAYYANKANDIYIL, VELLANOOR, CHOOLUR P.O., POLLAKODE VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.382/2000 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ FOR R SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3372 of 2007 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 16.02.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.580 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kunnamangalam for offences punishable under Sections.279 and 338 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences . 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.03.2000 at about 7.30 pm, the accused drove an Ambassador car bearing registration No.KLL 6030 along the REC- Mukkom public road from west to east and dashed against PW1, a scootarist who was proceeding from east to west along the said road. Since the revision petitioner was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to the human life, PW1, the scootarist sustained severe injuries. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:2:- 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months under section 338 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.07.06 Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:3:- confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds, the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence of PW1, the injured, PWs 4 and 5, who are the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence and having due regard to the situous of the occurrence. The said finding is a pure finding of the fact and this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said finding. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the aforesaid offences, particularly, when the award has been passed against him as well by Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:4:- the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal concerned. I am of the view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside. For his conviction under Section 279 IPC, he is sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Section 338 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days. The petitioner is given three weeks time from today to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj