IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2589 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.585/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.542/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O.CHAMIYAR, CHACKADUPARA VEEDU, PALLATHERI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2589 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad in criminal appeal No.585 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 06-10-2004 at about 2.45p.m petitioner drove a car along the side road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused that car hit a motor cycle on which PWs.1 and 2 were riding and which came along the Highway from west to east. According to the prosecution PW1 suffered grievous hurt while PW2 suffered hurt. PWs.1 ,2 and 4 gave evidence regarding the accident. PW3 is the medical officer who treated PWs.1 and 2 and issued wound certificate as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. PW9, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and issued Exts.P7 and P8. PW.8 conducted the investigation. Ext.P4 is the mahazar for scene of occurrence attested by PW.5. 3. Petitioner was chargesheeted along with offences above stated, for offence under section 338 of the Code also. He was convicted of offence also by learned magistrate but learned Additional Sessions Judge found that evidence of PW3 and Ext.P2 do not disclose Crl.R.P.No.2589 of 2009 2 that PW1 suffered grievous hurt. Hence petitioner was acquitted of the charges under section 338 of the Code. That part of the judgment is not under challenge at the instance of the State. What remained for consideration is only whether conviction of petitioner for offences under section 279 and 337 of the Code is legal and proper 4. That PWs.1 and 2 suffered hurt is proved by the evidence of PW3 and Exts.P2 and P3. That the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of either of the vehicles is proved by Exts.P7 and P8 and evidence of PW9. PWs.1, 2 and 4 gave evidence regarding the accident. Their evidence shows and it is not disputed also that petitioner was driving the car along the side road from north to south and was attempting to enter the National highway. Motor cycle on which PWs.1 and 2 were riding came from west to east along with the National Highway. In the process of petitioner entering the National highway from the northern side the car hit the motor cycle which PWs.1 and 2 were riding. PWs.1, 2 and 4 stated that petitioner entered the National highway without proper care and caution. While entering a main road from the side road petitioner was obliged to ensure that no vehicles were coming the main road. Evidence discloses rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple Crl.R.P.No.2589 of 2009 3 imprisonment for one month and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- under section 279 of the Code. Sentence under section 337 of the Code is simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel contends that sentence awarded is excessive. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case, I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. 6. Evidence of PW.3 and Exts.P2 and P3 show that PWs.1 and 2 suffered injuries. The nature of the injuries suffered by PWs.1 and 2 is stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 21 of the judgment. Having regard to the nature of injury suffered by PWs.1 and 2, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to compensate them for the loss they suffered. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by them, compensation payable to PWs.1 and 2 is fixed as Rs.1500/- and 3500/-, respectively. In default of payment petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted a months' time to deposit the fine. I am inclined to grant the time requested for. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: Crl.R.P.No.2589 of 2009 4 1. Sentence of fine awarded under sections 279 and 337 of the Code are set aside. 2. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner under section 279 and 337 of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 3. Petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PWs.1 and 2, Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) by way of compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on or before 10-09-2009 failing which petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The amount if deposited shall be shared by PWs.1 and 2. at the rate of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) to PW1, and 3500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only) to PW2, respectively. 4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 14-09-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 14-09-2009 THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/