IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1961 of 2005(A) ------------------------------ CRA.376/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.595/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- NAGABHOOSHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR 39/97, PARAYARUKUNNATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURY AMSOM, KAKKODI. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1961 of 2005(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.13314/2005 IN CR.R.P.NO.1961/2005 DISMISSED. 20.3.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1961 of 2005 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed by the accused who was concurrently found guilty by the courts below for offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicting him, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the said offences. Sessions Judge in appeal approving the conviction, modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month each. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence the accused has now preferred this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner assailed the conviction as unsustainable, contending that the material circumstances appearing in the case have not been properly appreciated by both the courts below which if examined in the correct perspective would unerringly give an indication, according to the counsel, that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused in driving his vehicle and causing the occurrence. P.W.1, the rider of the bike had parked Crl.R.P.No.1961 of 2005 - A 2 the vehicle in the tarred portion of the road and not in the road margin when P.W.2, the pillion rider got down for an enquiry with an autorickshaw driver and the version that both P.Ws.1 and 2 as to how the occurrence took place is different, and, P.W.1 had spoken a different version to the doctor immediately after he was brought to hospital, are pressed upon by the counsel to urge that implicit reliance is not permissible on their evidence to prove the culpability of the accused for the offences indicted against him. Lastly, inviting my attention to the injuries suffered by P.W.1 in the occurrence and pointing out that such injuries were minor, and also the continuation of the prosecution against accused for last more than one decade, learned counsel urged for modification of the sentence, if at all the conviction against the accused is found impenetrable in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Perusing the records of the case, I find that the finding entered by the court below as to the culpability of the accused in causing the occurrence on account of his rash and negligence driving of the vehicle, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other materials tendered in the case, does not suffer from any infirmity. P.W.1 had parked the bike in the tarred portion of the road does not in any way absolve the accused Crl.R.P.No.1961 of 2005 - A 3 where it is shown that the vehicle driven by him hit on the rear side of the bike after P.W.2, the pillion rider got down from that bike to have an enquiry with an autorickshaw driver. The proved facts and circumstances, as found by the court below, unerringly show that the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van by the accused caused the occurrence resulting injuries to the rider of the bike. So much so, conviction imposed against the accused is proper and valid. As regards the sentence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature of injuries suffered by P.W.1 and the period of time that had lapsed after the occurrence, I find incarceration of the accused in prison is not required to meet the ends of justice. So, upholding the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is modified directing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC with default term of imprisonment for one month and Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC with default term of imprisonment for 15 days. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-