IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1765 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.98/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC- I), KOZHIKODE CC.330/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- P.CHANDRAN,S/O.KANARAN, THIYYAROTH THAZHE,KARAYADU,EKKATTOOR DESOM, ARIKKULAM,KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1765 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. 2. Case is that on 1.3.2006 at about 7.45 p.m. he was riding his motor bike along the public road from west to east in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit PW1 who was walking along the side of the road from east to west. PW1 suffered grievous hurt. 3. That, PW1 suffered grievous hurt is proved by PW6, the doctor and Ext.P6, wound certificate. PW3, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the offending vehicle and issued Ext.P2. His evidence is that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of that vehicle. 4. Evidence regarding the accident is given by PWs 1 and 2. PW1, victim stated that at the relevant time he was walking from east to west along the northern side of the road and was hit by the motor bike which the petitioner was riding. He attributed excessive speed of the motor bike as the cause of accident. PW2 referred to the accident but did not attribute any rashness or Crl.R.P.No.1765/2009 2 negligence to the petitioner. PW4 is an attestor in Ext.P3, mahazar for scene of occurrence prepared by PW5, Head Constable. In Ext.P3, lie of the road is stated as east to west, tar portion as having width of four (4) metres, and the accident spot is described as 25 cms north of the northern tar end, in the road margin. From the evidence courts below concluded that petitioner was rash and negligent in riding the motor bike. Learned counsel contended that the finding is erroneous since there is no acceptable evidence to show that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel that accident occurred not at the spot stated in Ext.P3 since according to PW1, the accident occurred on the tar portion of the road. 5. PW5 who investigated the case has identified the accident spot as pointed out by PW2 who witnessed the accident. Though PW2 did not specifically say in his evidence that he pointed out the place of occurrence, that fact is stated in Ext.P3 which is proved through PW5 and there is no challenge to the contents of Ext.P3. Therefore it is in evidence that place of occurrence was pointed out by PW2 who is a witness to the accident and who has supported the prosecution. Merely because PW1 stated that accident occurred on the tar portion I am unable to ignore Ext.P3 and the accident spot mentioned therein. Ext.P3 shows that accident occurred in the northern road margin. Crl.R.P.No.1765/2009 3 6. PW1 was fair enough to concede that he is in the habit of taking liquor and even on the day of accident he did that. But there is no evidence to show that as suggested by petitioner, PW1 was under the influence of liquor, that he was unable to manage himself, fell down and sustained injury. Ext.P6, wound certificate does not say anything about PW1 having consumed liquor. 7. Ext.P3 shows that road is sufficiently wide at the place of accident. There is no case or evidence that there was any other vehicle on the road at the relevant time and place. There is also no evidence of any circumstance under which petitioner was compelled to take the motor bike towards the northern road margin. In such a situation that the accident occurred on the northern road margin indicated rashness and negligence on the part of petitioner. As such the conclusion arrived at by the courts below that petitioner was rash and negligent in riding the motor bike required no interference. 8. Learned counsel contended that appellate court has not stated anything about the excessiveness of the sentence imposed. Counsel requested that leniency may be shown to the petitioner in the matter of sentence. 9. It is not shown that the petitioner is involved in any other case. Petitioner has been fighting this case for the last three years. It is admitted by PW1 also that he had consumed liquor at the time of accident. In these circumstances I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. At the same time, PW1 who suffered grievous hurt has to be compensated. Considering the facts and circumstances Crl.R.P.No.1765/2009 4 of the case, I direct the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to PW1. In case of non-payment, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. ii. Petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PW1 as compensation Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) within two months from this day failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. iii. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10.8.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5404 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks