IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 756 of 2002() ----------------------------------------- CRA.2/1996 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY C.C.192/1993 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ A.VINODAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, RESIDING AT MOKERI. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASST. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANOOR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of January, 2011 ORDER The Sub Inspector of Police, Panoor in Crime No.216 of 1992 of the Panoor Police Station prosecuted the revision petitioner and another for offence punishable under Sec.279 and 338 IPC. It was alleged that revision petitioner was the driver of a Stage Carriage Bus bearing Registration No.KLN 4599 and that at 4.10 p.m on 19.11.1992 at Panoor Bus Stand while the bus was driven in reverse it hit down PW2, Sheema and the front left wheel ran over the right foot of PW2 and as a result PW2 sustained grievous hurt. The prosecution would allege that the incident occured because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner. The other accused was the cleaner of the bus. 2. Soon after the incident PW2 was lifted to the Primary Health Centre, Panoor in an Autorikshaw driven by PW.1. Ext.P1 first information statement was given by PW1 on the basis of which the case was registered. Investigation was taken over by PWs.11 and 12. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was laid. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 -: 2 :- Thalassery before whom the charge sheet was submitted took cognizance and proceeded as C.C.No.192 of 1993. In response to the summons issued the revision petitioner and other accused entered appearance. They pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offences were read over and explained. Hence they were sent for trial. On the side of prosecution PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution the revision petitioner and the other accused were questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence was let in. 3. Learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence on record arrived at a finding of guilt as against the revision petitioner. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of `.1,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Sec.338 IPC. The other accused was found not guilty and acquitted under Sec.255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence the revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1996 before the Sessions Judge, Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 -: 3 :- Thalassery. Learned Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 30.04.2002, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. PW1 had not seen the incident. He had only taken PW2 in an Autorikshaw driven by him to the Primary Health Centre, Panoor. PW2 had identified the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus and she had given evidence supporting the prosecution case. PWs.3 and 4 though identified the revision petitioner did not support the prosecution as regards the negligence alleged against the revision petitioner. PW5 is only an attestor to Ext.P2, the body mahazar of the bus prepared by PW11, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. PWs.6 and 7 are attestors to Ext.P3, the scene mahazar. PWs.8 and 9 had given evidence supporting the evidence of PW2. Their evidence would show that the accident occurred at the bus stand and PW2 was knocked down and the left wheel of the bus ran over the right foot of PW2 while the bus was driven reverse. The above evidence of PWs.2, 8 and 9 were believed by the courts below Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 -: 4 :- and arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Regarding the identity of the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus, there is clinching evidence of Pws.2 to 5, 8, 9 and 13 which the courts below concurrently found in favour of the prosecution. It is not disputed that the revision petitioner was driving the bus at the time of occurrence. The evidence of PW10, the Medical Officer attached to the Primary Health Centre, Panoor who issued Ext.P4, wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW.14, the medical officer attached to the Medical College Hospital who proved Ext.P6, the discharge summary would show that PW2 had sustained compound fracture and crush injury on the right foot with midtarsal dislocation. The grievous nature of injuries sustained to PW2 is established by the evidence of PWs.10 and 14 supported by Exts.P4 and P6. So the evidence on record is sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that as a result of the incident alleged PW2 sustained grievous hurt. There is no case that the vehicle had any mechanical defect or that the accident occurred because of the reasons beyond the control of the revision petitioner who was driving the bus. It is also not disputed that the incident was immediately after the Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 -: 5 :- school hours and a group of students were in the bus stand. Revision petitioner, who was driving the bus reverse should have been cautious especially when the school children are gathered at the bus stand to fetch the bus to go home. The evidence of PWs.2 to 5, 8 and 9 would convincingly establish that the bus was driven reverse while the students boarding the bus. Had the revision petitioner been cautious while driving the bus in reverse he could have avoided the accident. There is little material to come to a conclusion that PW2 jumped to the bus while taking reverse and sustained injury or that PW2 contributed negligence. In the above circumstances on a careful reading of the judgments of the courts below as well as evidence of Pws.2 to 5, 8 and 9 I find that the courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion that the revision petitioner was negligent in driving the bus in reverse at the bus stand and that negligence had caused the accident and as a result PW2 sustained grievous hurt. I find that the conviction under challenge is supported by cogent evidence. Courts below were correct in appreciating the evidence. There is no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. Crl.R.P.No.756 of 2002 -: 6 :- 4. As regards the sentence, as opined by the appellate court, trial court has taken a very lenient view. The sentence awarded is not at all harsh. It is neither beyond the proportion. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result the revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) Sbna/-