IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 530 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.109/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.411/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.P.VINODKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN NAIR, THEKKENPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.KAKKODI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.530 of 2001 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate Court to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 337 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 338 IPC. Sentence was ordered to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Court and the appeal filed by him was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2. The accused was charge sheeted for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, on the contention that on 8.1.1995 at about 10.15 a.m, the accused drove the buss in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the rear right side of the Crl.RP.530/01 2 bus, KEZ 4029, which was driven by PW5 and which was parked on the side of the road for passengers to get down. Some persons sustained simple injuries and others sustained grievous injuries. Because of the incident, grievous injuries and simple injuries were caused to certain passengers in the bus driven by the accused and thereby he committed the various offences. 3. The courts below found that evidence of PW1 and PW2 will prove the incident alleged by the prosecution. They are injured witnesses, who supported the prosecution case. It was also noted that PW3, another injured, who gave First Information Statement, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW4 to PW6 also did not support the prosecution and they were treated as hostile. PW7, who is the conductor of the bus stated that the bus, which was parked on the side of the road was hit by another bus from rear side as a result of which some passengers in the bus were injured. Both the courts below found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 proved the prosecution case. Crl.RP.530/01 3 4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that various witnesses turned hostile, including PW3, who gave the First Information Statement. Though he would argue that all PW3 to PW7 turned hostile, their evidences, as a whole, will show that they did not deviate much from the prosecution case, but they stated that the bus, which was parked in front was hit by the bus, which came from the rear side and the incident happened accordingly. The accused has a case that the bus was not parked on the road, but it suddenly stopped when a person showed signal to stop, while questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Nothing was brought out from the evidence to show that such a thing happened. 5. On the other hand, suggestions are given to the effect that the bus was stopped for allowing the passengers to get down and that was in the middle of the road. There is no evidence to support the contention raised by the accused. On the other hand, the prosecution proved its case, as found by both the courts below. I do not find any perversity in the findings of fact. I do not find any impropriety in accepting the Crl.RP.530/01 4 evidence of PW1 and PW2, which is corroborated by other evidence. 6. Though learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the evidence of PW3, the person who gave First Information Statement, is contradictory to the statement given in the First Information Statement, a reading of evidence of PW3 will show that no significant contradictions are brought out. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that PW11, who recorded the First Information Statement was not cross- examined to bring out any contradictions made by PW3. In the above circumstances, the arguments that there are contradictions in the First Information Statement and the evidence of PW3 cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that leniency may be shown in the question of sentence. Though several persons are injured in the accident and it is proved by the prosecution that this is a case where the accused hit against a vehicle, which was parked by the side of the road even though there is sufficient space on the road (width of the road being Crl.RP.530/01 5 7.10 meters) and the incident happened at a point which lies 3 meters away from the eastern tarred end, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find that the petitioner deserves any more leniency. The maximum sentence imposed is only to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of fine is only Rs.1,500/- etc. under the various Sections. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs. Crl.RP.530/01 6 K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.530 of 2001 ------------------------------ O R D E R 22.7.2009