IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 259 of 2002() -------------------------------------------- CRA.390/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.785/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) /APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SURESH, S/O CHEKKOTTY, KALARIYULLATHIL, KALPATHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKOE DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.MOHAMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.2030/2002 IN CRRP. NO.259/2002 DISMISSED 25/03/2010 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN , JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2002. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The Sub Inspector of Police, Perambra in Crime No.71/95 filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perambra, against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC with allegation that at 9.15 am. on 14.3.1995, the revision petitioner drove a Jeep bearing No.KL-11/B 2817 along Perambra - Kuttiadi road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit against Pws.1 and 2, who are the mother and son while they were walking along the road and as a result they were caused to sustain grievous hurt. 2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded as CC.No.757/1997. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. The Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2002. -: 2 :- learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offence alleged. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months each for offence under Sec.279 and 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec.338 IPC with order to run the sentence concurrently. 3. In Crl.Appeal No.390/1999, the learned Sessions Judge found that the revision petitioner was rash and negligent in driving. But, Pws.1 and 2 sustained only simple injuries. Consequently, the conviction and sentence for offence under Sec.338 IPC were set aside. The sentence for offence under Sec.279 and 337 was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence for offence under Sec.279 and 337 IPC as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2002. -: 3 :- 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction. But, the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is now 40 years old and that after this incident, no accident occurred at his hands and that possibility for Pws.1 and 2 cutting across the road could not be ruled out. With this submission, the learned counsel sought for a lenient sentence. 5. Having taken into account of the circumstances stated and going by the judgments of the courts below, the possibility for Pws.1 and 2 attempting to cut across the road cannot be ruled out. In the above circumstance and taking note of the nature of injuries sustained to Pws.1 and 2, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and that imprisonment till rising of the court and direction to pay Rs.5,000/- each as compensation to Pws.1 and 2 would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2002. -: 4 :- While confirming the conviction, sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to Pws.1 and 2. In default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The driving licence of the revision petitioner shall stand suspended for a period of six months. The revision petitioner shall produce the driving licence before the trial court so as to have the suspension endorsed. The revision petitioner is granted one month's time to remit the compensation. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-