IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1402 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.104/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.91/1995 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- N.K. RATNAKARAN, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, DRIVER, KOODALI AMSOM, POOVATHUR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA - CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1402 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated 29th June, 2010 O R D E R Accused in C.C.91/1995 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery filed this revision challenging concurrent conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304 A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and Section 162 read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that learned counsel has already relinquished the vakalath and a memo was filed as early as on 7/4/2010 to that effect. Revision petitioner has not engaged any other counsel. 2. Prosecution case is that revision petitioner was driving lorry KLN- CRRP 1402/03 2 5254 rashly and negligently on 27/9/1994 along Kannur-Mattannur public road and when it reached near A.V.P school at Kannur due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry it ran over small boy studying in sixth standard in that school causing his instantaneous death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P5. On the evidence, it was found that petitioner was driving the lorry rashly and negligently, so as to endanger human life and by such driving caused death of Riyaz a boy who was studying in sixth standard and thereby committed the offences. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Thalassery in Crl.A.104/1999. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed that findings. Case of the revision CRRP 1402/03 3 petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove that petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently or that death of the boy was due to rash and negligent driving and evidence of Pws.1 to 3 should not have been believed by the courts below. Therefore, conviction is not sustainable. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that courts below properly appreciated the evidence and it is conclusively proved that petitioner was driving the lorry rashly and negligently, so as to endanger human life and by such driving caused the death of IVth Riyas a standard student and there is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. 4. Fact that petitioner was the driver of the lorry at that time was not disputed. Only contention raised in the petition is that CRRP 1402/03 4 there is no evidence to prove that lorry was being driven rashly or negligently. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. It was found that evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 6 is trust worthy and reliable. It was on their evidence it was found that lorry was being driven rashly or negligently and in over speed and had run over the boy who was walking along the side of the road. On going through the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, I find no reason to interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the courts below or acceptance of their evidence. Evidence establish that petitioner was driving the lorry rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and by such driving the lorry ran over the boy causing his death and there was no CRRP 1402/03 5 mechanical defect for the vehicle at the relevant time. Evidence of PW9 with Ext.P2 postmortem certificate conclusively establish that death was caused due to the injuries sustained in the incident and those injuries were inflicted when lorry ran over him. That fact was also not disputed and PW9 in fact was not cross examined. In such circumstances, prosecution has conclusively established that petitioner committed the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 177 read with Section 162 of Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner is perfectly legal. Then the question is only regarding the sentence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of CRRP 1402/03 6 Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304 A and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and Rule 162 read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. Sentence awarded is only on the lower side. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence. Revision fails and is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.