IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 157 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ (CRA.188/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI) (CC.239/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- BABU, S/O. APPUCHETTIAR, MANAYANGATTU HOUSE, WANDOOR AMSOM, VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. THE S.I OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.157 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008. O R D E R 1.The revision petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction. It also confirmed the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The punishment of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the learned Magistrate under Section 338 IPC was modified by the Court of Session to be one of simple imprisonment for three months. 2.The allegation against the revision petitioner was that at about 1.30 p.m. on 16-4-1997, he drove a bus in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and that the said bus hit against the railings of a bridge and as a result CRRP.157/2004 -: 2 :- of the impact, hurt/grievous hurt was caused to different passengers of the bus. 3.P.Ws.1 to 5 spoke of the incident, though P.W.1 was declared hostile and P.W.3 claimed that she was sleeping in the bus. Without any cross examination in that line, a defence version was attempted to be set up by examining D.W.1 and D.W.2 to the effect that the revision petitioner was attempting to avert a major accident. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Magistrate and the learned Session Judge rejected the defence version and ruled out all probabilities in the defence version. The situs of impact, the nature of the damage to the vehicle, the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the passengers, including loss of toes and other attendant facts, as also, the scene mahazar, were considered by the courts below in appreciating the evidence and concluding that the revision petitioner is guilty. The suggestion that there could have been mechanical defect was also overruled, in view of CRRP.157/2004 -: 3 :- the contents of Ext.P13 report. 4.In the light of the materials on record, the finding that the accused is guilty have been concurrently arrived at, correctly. The same does not call for any interference. The Court of Session having been lenient in reducing the sentence awarded under Section 338 IPC, I find no further room for indulgence on the question of sentence also. The revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ttb/1106