IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER, 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1506 of 2001 (CRA.53/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DIVISION CC.266/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAYIL, PURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PUNNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2001 - A --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 189 of 1995 of the Koduvally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C'). The trial court as well as the appellate court found him guilty under the above offences and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Under Section 338 of I.P.C. , he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. It was also ordered that sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently. It is the above finding, conviction and CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-2-: sentence challenged in this criminal revision petition. 2. The prosecution case is that on 15.9.1995 at 7 a.m., the accused drove KL-11/D-1731 private bus through Kozhikode-Wayanad road from south to north in a most rash and negligent manner and collided against KLX 6407 KSRTC bus at Nellankandy, which was coming from north to south. In order to prove the above allegation, Pws.1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked from the side of the prosecution. The accused took a stand of total denial. However, the trial court found him guilty and accordingly, he was convicted under the above counts and accordingly, sentenced. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, though the accused has preferred criminal appeal, by judgment dated 22.6.2001 in Crl.A.No.53 of 1999, the Sessions Court, Kozhikode dismissed the appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-3-: 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that there is no cogent evidence to substantiate the prosecution allegation and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court convicted the accused in the absence of sufficient materials and evidence on record. The learned counsel pointed out that though the witnesses have deposed before the court below that the vehicle, which was driven by the petitioner, was in high speed, the same alone cannot be taken as a ground for conviction, in the absence of any supporting materials. The learned counsel took me through Ext.P1 scene mahazar. It is the submission of the learned counsel that there is no specific description regarding the actual place of occurrence and there is no specific reference in Ext.P1 to locate and identify the actual place of occurrence. I am unable to accept the above argument of the learned counsel. The witnesses examined in this case mainly, Pws.1 to 3 and 7 are injured witnesses, who sustained injuries, in the very CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-4-: same accident. The identity of the accused was fully established through the deposition of such injured witnesses, especially the evidence of PW7, who had categorically stated that he had previous acquaintance with the accused. Thus, the identity of the accused is fully established. 5. Regarding the place of occurrence and for the reason of the accident, all the witnesses have positively deposed in favour of the prosecution. Ext.P1 scene mahazar described the actual place of occurrence. From the available evidence, it is crystal clear that the private stage carriage driven by the accused was going in the northern direction from south whereas the KSRTC bus was coming from north to southern side. The accident had taken place at a point, one metre towards the west from the tar end, that means the private bus was on the wrong side. As the private bus was proceeding to the northern direction, the same ought to have gone along with the western side of the CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-5-: Kozhikode-Wayanad road which was lying in south-north direction and the accused ought to have controlled the speed of the bus as there was a curve. From the above facts supported by clear and acceptable evidence, the trial court as well as the appellate court are right in holding that the accident had taken place because of the negligence and rash driving of the accused. As the documentary as well as the oral evidences are unassailable, I find no illegality on the finding arrived on by the court below accepting the prosecution evidence. Therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the findings arrived on by the courts below. 6. Regarding the sentence, the learned counsel submitted that some lenient view may be taken. At the time of the incident, the accused was at the age of 38 years and now he is at the age of 52. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner/accused has got any previous conviction or sentence. Considering the above facts and circumstances, CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-6-: I am of the view that in the matter of sentence, a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the accused is reduced and fixed as three months under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. and the sentence of fine awarded by the court is maintained as such. The sentence of imprisonment awarded against the revision petitioner/accused will run concurrently. If the petitioner has undergone any pre-trial imprisonment, he is entitled to get set off the same. The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused is cancelled and he is directed to appear before the convicting court within two months from today and if he has not appeared before the court as directed, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to procure his presence and to execute the sentence. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V.K.Mohanan, MBS/ Judge CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-7-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 1506 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- O R D E R DATED: 26-10-2009 CRRP NO.1506 OF 2001 :-8-: