IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1551 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.22/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.248/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- ODUVIL KUTTIHASSAN, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, EDAYUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1551 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.248/1994 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.22/1997 of Sessions Court, Manjeri. He was convicted under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of 750/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 338 of IPC by the trial court. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 337 of IPC. On appeal, the Sessions Court confirmed his conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial court was that on June 26, 1994 at about 9. A.M. , the accused drove his taxi jeep bearing Registration No.KRM 1557 rash and in Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers negligent manner through Perinthalmanna-Pandikkad public road and when it reached near the Pattikkad junction, it dashed against the back side of an Auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-10/S.5369 which was stopped for alighting the passengers, as a result of which the Auto rickshaw capsized on the road and PW2 the driver of the Auto rickshaw, PW3 and CW4 the passengers of the jeep sustained minor injuries and that after hitting the Auto rickshaw, the jeep knocked down a pedestrian PW1 who was walking along the eastern side of the road causing grievous injuries to him and that thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3. When the accused appeared before the trial court, he pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of prosecution. The accused when questioned by the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. , denied the entire incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. The following points arise for consideration. 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? Point No.1 6. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the pedestrian who was knocked down by the jeep. He is the person who gave the FI statement from the hospital. PWs 2 and 3 are the driver of Auto rickshaw and passenger of the jeep respectively who also sustained minor injuries in the accident. They turned hostile and Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers did not support the prosecution. PWs 4 and 9 are independent eye witnesses to the accident who supported PW1. PWs 5 and 6 are the witnesses to Ext.P2 scene mahazer. Ext.P7 is the then C.M.O, Al-shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna who proved Exts.P3 to P6 wound certificates. PW8 is the AMVI who inspected the vehicles involved in the accident and issued Ext.P7 and P8 inspection reports. Ext.P10 is the investigating officer.PW11 is the Sub Inspector who laid the charge before the trial court. 7. PW1, the pedestrian who was knocked down by the jeep supported the prosecution and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. He identified the accused as the driver of the jeep . His evidence is supported by independent eye witnesses PWs 4 and 9. They categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. 8. I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 9. I find no reason to discredit their evidence. That apart, the jeep dashed against the back side of the Auto rickshaw and then capsized and knocked down PW1 which itself shows that there is negligence on the Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers part of the driver of the jeep. For all these reasons, I am inclined to confirm the conviction of the accused under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Point No.2 9. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a fine of Rs. 750/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of IPC and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 338 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in 1994 and that PW2, PW3 and CW4 sustained minor injuries , I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 338 of IPC would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine imposed under Section 279 of IPC is confirmed. 10. There is another aspect. PW1 sustained grievous injuries and PWs 2 , 3 and CW4 sustained minor injuries. Therefore, I feel that the revision petitioner/accused should pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to the injured persons. Out of the compensation, Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to PW1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to PW2, PW3 and CW4. Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioner by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is upheld. The sentence imposed under Section 279 of IPC is confirmed. He is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 338 of IPC. The revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the compensation, Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to PW1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to PW2, PW3 and CW4. Revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 30-11-2009 to receive the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1551/2002 Page numbers