IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 572 of 2002 ----------------------------------- CRA.108/1997 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1720/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR,S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, THARAYIL HOUSE,THENKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 572 of 2002-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, both by the trial court as well as the appellate court, has preferred this revision petition. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 45 days. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. Under section 338 IPC petitioner was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. His driving licence was ordered to be suspended under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for a period of 6 months. In appeal the Sessions Court confirmed the above order of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on April 13, 1995 at about 8.45 a.m. petitioner/accused had driven a stage carriage bearing registration No.KLG 7774 through Mannarkkad-Palakkad public road in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed in such a manner so as to endanger human life . When the bus reached Chirakkalppadi, the bus capsized resulting in grievous injuries to Cws.1 and 2 and simple injuries to Cws.3 to 5. 3. The prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 on its side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the Crl.RP.572/02 2 side of the defence. 4. The learned Magistrate after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner/accused. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal re-evaluated the evidence on record and concurred with the finding of the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two prime witnesses on the side of the prosecution viz., Pws.1 and 2 did not have a case that petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However it is conceded by the learned counsel that these two witnesses had, of course, stated that the petitioner had been driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time at a high speed. But learned counsel submits, relying on a decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Gopalan Nair (1988 (2) KLJ 662) that sheer speed of a vehicle may not be the sole criterion to decide the question whether there was any element of rashness or negligence to attract the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. 6. I have carefully perused the depositions of Pws.1 and 2. Pw.1 in unequivocal terms had stated that the bus had capsized towards the right side of the road because of the overspeed of the vehicle. He further asserted that petitioner had been driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time at extra ordinary speed as compared to other drivers. He had clearly identified the petitioner as the driver of the Crl.RP.572/02 3 vehicle. He further stated that he gave the accused even a warning. This assertion was made by Pw.1 in response to a suggestion made by the defence that he could not have identified the accused as the driver. He further denied the suggestion that the bus had capsized when the petitioner tried to apply brake to avert a collision with the vehicle going in front, which had suddenly stopped. Pw.2 had also stated that the bus had capsized towards the right side because of overspeed. He also identified the accused. In cross examination this witness further stated that the vehicle was being driven at excessive speed as soon as it pushed off from Mannarkkad and because of this he had noticed the driver. In fact Pw.2 stated that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a reckless manner. Of course, he admitted that he had not stated so before the Police, since, according to him, he was not asked. He denied the suggestion that the bus was not being driven at an excessive speed. Pw.2 had suffered fracture of his left hand, apart from another injury on his backbone. 7. It may be true that Pws.1 and 2 had not used the terminologies like 'rash' and 'negligent' driving in their deposition. But I have no doubt in my mind that these two witnesses had conveyed the undeniable impression that the bus was being driven by the petitioner at overspeed and that the accident had occurred only because of such overspeed. The evidence of these witnesses undoubtedly shows that the accident had occurred only because of the excessive speed of the Crl.RP.572/02 4 vehicle. Driving a vehicle at unreasonably excessive speed can undoubtedly be synonym for rash and negligent driving in a given circumstance. Of course petitioner had stated in his 313 statement that the bus had capsized when he tried to apply brake to avert collision with a vehicle which was going ahead of him. This also implies that petitioner had not kept vigil or at least that he was driving the vehicle at more than average speed. Being a public transport vehicle, it is the bounden duty of drivers like the petitioner to ensure the safety of the passengers travelling in such vehicles. 8. In my view the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is sufficient to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned. 9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has made an impassioned plea to show leniency in the matter of sentence, I do not see any ground to show such indulgence in this case. Petitioner has been awarded only reasonable sentence. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.