IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 1998() ----------------------------- CRA.60/1994 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.427/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- RAJENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, VAYALARIKATHU VEEDU, NAMPACHAYIL (FROM KODANNOOR KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHANNAPETTA MURI VILLAGE). BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.R.SURESH (KATTAYAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 256/1998 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO. 1560/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 256/1998 DISMISSED 16.06.2008 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 256 of 1998 ========================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No. 427 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 04.02.1991 the accused drove a taxi jeep from west to east along Anchal-Chengamanadu road in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life. When the jeep reached a little distance east of the Thadicadu junction, it dashed against Muhammad Haneefa aged 55 years who was a pedestrian walking along the said road from west to east. Muhammed Haneefa who was thrown off the road, sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body including his ribs. As a result of the injuries, Muhammad Haneefa succumbed to the same at 7.30 p.m on the same day from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 15 and 13 documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P13 and 2 material objects were produced. CRL.R.P. NO. 256/1998 : 2: 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 29.06.1994 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A)IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304 (A) IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. His driving licence was suspended for a period of six months under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 60 of 1994 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 256/1998 : 3: 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sections 304 (A) and 279 IPC is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammed Haneefa under Section 304 (A) IPC. On default to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. For his conviction under Section 279 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- CRL.R.P. NO. 256/1998 : 4: (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The fine as well as compensation amount shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today. This leniency in the matter of punishment under Section 304 (A) IPC is shown after taking note of the fact that in O.P(M.V) No. 1266 of 1991 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Kollam, a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- including interest has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased on 10.01.1996. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 256/1998 : 5: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. 256 of 1998 ---------------------------------------- 16th day of June, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. NO. 256/1998 : 6: