IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 252 of 2004(B) ------------------------------ CRA.231/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.51/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SATHYAN S/O.THERIVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, EDAKKAD MEETHAL, PADINHATTUM MURI AMSOM, KIZHAKKUMMURI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 252 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 Order Basheer, J: The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found the petitioner guilty under both counts and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Petitioner was further disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of one year under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In appeal, the above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Court, Hence this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly noticed. Petitioner was working as a driver in a stage carriage bearing registration No.KLL 6314. On September 14, 1996 at about 6 p.m. while he was driving the said vehicle it happened to hit on the rear side of another bus proceeding ahead of him, causing not only damage to the said bus but also injuries to some of the passengers. The prosecution alleged that the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The charge was denied by the petitioner. ICrl.RP.252/2004 : 2 : 3. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P12 on its side. 4. Pws. 1 to 3 were stated to be the passengers travelling in the bus that was being driven by the petitioner, while Pw.4 was a passenger in the other bus. While Pws.1 and 2 had admitted that they sustained injuries in the accident, both of them stated that they did not remember who the driver of the bus was. In other words, they failed to identify the petitioner as the driver. Pw.3 stated that he was also injured in the accident. He further asserted that the accident occurred only because of the overspeed of the bus driven by the petitioner. He also identified the petitioner as the driver at the relevant point of time. Pw.4 deposed that it was the petitioner who was driving the bus at the time of the accident, but he stated that he could not say what was the reason for the accident. In short, the evidence of these 4 witnesses amply established that the accident as alleged by the prosecution did occur and that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and also that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. The courts below have concurrently found, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge levelled against the petitioner. ICrl.RP.252/2004 : 3 : 5. However Sri. Sunny Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence given by the witnesses to the effect that the accident occurred because of the overspeed ought not to have been accepted by the courts below as the final word to fix the charge of rash and negligent driving on the petitioner, especially since overspeed is a very subjective phenomenon. He further contends that even if a person drives a vehicle at a normal speed in the range of 40 to 50 kilometer per hour, some people may assess it as overspeed. Yet again, depending on the road condition and the volume of traffic available, a speed of 60 to 70 KMPH cannot be termed as overspeed. I do not propose to enter into this area of controversy at this stage in this particular case, since the evidence available on record will clearly show that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner, even assuming that he was not driving the vehicle at excessive speed. I am persuaded to take the above view since admittedly the vehicle being driven by the petitioner rammed against a vehicle in front, which was also on the move. Petitioner in whose hands lay the lives of many passengers, ought to have been careful especially when he saw another vehicle proceeding ahead of him. It is a common sight these days in the roads of Kerala that drivers of stage carriages are competing with the other vehicles especially if ICrl.RP.252/2004 : 4 : they are plying on the same route. On many occasions accidents have occurred only because of the reckless driving by the drivers of these vehicles without any care for life and property of not only the passengers who are being carried in them but of those pedestrians and commuters in other vehicles. 6. Coming back to the case on hand, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding entered by the courts below as regards the guilt of the accused. However in the matter of sentence, I am of the view that some leniency can be shown to the petitioner especially since the accident occurred about 14 years ago. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment for 3 months each awarded to the petitioner can be modified and reduced to a sentence of one month each under the two heads. The sentence shall run concurrently. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.