IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 660 of 2000() ----------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.V.NARAYANAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, PATTUVATHERU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.8.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.660 of 2000 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Magistrate Court to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 337 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence this revision. 2. On the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. Accused did not adduce any evidence. But, he stated that he is innocent and he did not even know to drive vehicles. On analysis of the evidence, particularly of the eye witnesses and the injured in this case, both the courts found concurrently that the accused Crl.R.P.No.660/00 2 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and it hit against a shop belonging to PW1, a cycle, an auto rickshaw and a tempo van. It was also found that the accused was drunk and he had no licence at the relevant time. 3. Learned defence counsel submitted that though several grounds are raised, he is only arguing on the identity of the driver at the time of occurrence. It is argued that there is no evidence to show that the accused was driving the vehicle at that time. From the evidence of PW1, it was brought out that he saw the vehicle only after hitting. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time of incident. It was also argued that on the basis of evidence of PW3, it cannot be said that the accused was the driver at the time of incident. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is more sufficient evidence to hold that accused was identified at the time of incident. PW3, who is the auto rickshaw driver, categorically deposed that accused was the driver at the time of incident and in the cross-examination also he stated that he Crl.R.P.No.660/00 3 had seen the accused at the time of driving the vehicle and the accused was taken out from the vehicle after opening the door of the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he is not the driver. He also stated that he has previous acquaintance with the accused. 5. It was also submitted that the accused was taken into custody by PW12, investigating officer, and he was sent for medical examination and he was found to be under influence of alcohol. He had also sustained injuries in the incident as revealed from the medical evidence. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the records and the judgments of the courts below, I find that identity of the driver cannot be doubted. Both the courts below considered this fact and entered concurrent findings that revision petitioner was the driver. The submissions made by learned defence counsel are not sufficient to interfere with such findings, especially in the light of the facts pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. From the case records, it appears that the accused Crl.R.P.No.660/00 4 was taken to the hospital and he was smelling alcohol at the time of examination by PW6, the doctor and Exhibit P6 was also issued. Though the accused was not having any injury, it is seen from the evidence of the eye witnesses that he had not even got out of the vehicle after the incident and it will appear from the evidence of PW6 and Exhibit P6 that he could not move out because of his physical condition on consumption of liquor. The accused has no case that he was not examined by the doctor and he has not explained under what circumstances he was examined by PW6. 8. PW12, investigating officer, took him into custody after clearing the traffic and he was sent for medical examination. The courts below have rightly concluded that the accused was the driver at the time of incident. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that it is in evidence that the vehicle was taken away by accused unauthorisedly and this fact was not challenged. 9. The learned defence counsel also submitted that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence, since the Crl.R.P.No.660/00 5 accused is very old now. On going through the impugned judgment, I find that the maximum sentence awarded is only six months. Two children were injured in the incident and they were examined by the doctor. Damage was caused to a shop, a cycle, an auto rickshaw and a van. I do not find that the sentence awarded is excessive. The age alone is not the criterion to reduce the sentence. In the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs. Crl.R.P.No.660/00 6 K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.660 of 2000 ------------------------------ O R D E R 25.8.2009