IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 77 of 2004() ---------------------------- CC.112/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- KALLINGAL SIDDIQUE, S/O. MOIDEEN, THRIPRANGODE AMSOM, PORUNTHALLUR DESOM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== Crl.R.P.No.77 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279 and 338 I.P.C. 2. The courts below concurrently, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.10 to 13, found that the accused was driving a jeep carrying P.Ws.1, 4 and 10 to 13 on 20-1-1997 along with one Fathimakutty and Kunjimoideen, who died as a result of the incident. The allegation against the accused was that he drove that vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in tremendous speed and the vehicle went off the road and hit an electric post resulting in the vehicle turning turtle. Fathimakutty and Kunjimoideen died instantaneously. CRRP77/2004 -:2:- 3. The identity of the accused, as the driver of the vehicle, has been well established by the testimony of P.Ws.10 to 13 who supported the prosecution version, though two other witnesses turned hostile. 4. The pivotal defence is that one of the victims, namely Fathimakutty was not a passenger, but a pedestrian and that the incident was as a result of her attempt to cross the road. This version has been found against by the courts below relying on legal evidence, the testimony of P.Ws.10 to 13. A reading of the testimony of those witnesses does not lead to any other conclusion. The appreciation of the evidence by the courts below cannot be found fault with. It is correct, legal and proper. CRRP77/2004 -:3:- 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence. It needs to be noticed in this context that the trial court, having found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C, had imposed the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The lower appellate court has taken a proper view and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A to be for one year. Having found that the incident resulted in the death of two persons, who were passengers in the vehicle driven by the accused, I find no legal infirmity with the sentence and it would be inappropriate to trim it down further. CRRP77/2004 -:4:- For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.