IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1160 of 2000() ------------------------------ CRA.210/1994 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.83/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, SRAMBIKKAL, PAYYANNIKKAL, PANNIANKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. NOW RESIDING AT SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, MAYANPALLI PARAMBA, PANNIYANKARA VIA., KALLAI POST, CALICUT -3. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 1160/2000 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL. M.P. NO. 6075/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 1160/2000 DISMISSED 17.06.2008 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1160 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.83 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 25.06.1993, the revision petitioner/accused drove a stage carrier bus bearing registration No. KRM 5879 from east to west along the Malappuram-Kozhikode road in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life. When the bus reached Charankuth at about 12.30 p.m., the bus driven by the revision petitioner/accused dashed against another bus bearing registration No. KRM 1400 coming from the opposite direction CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :2: resulting in the driver of the second bus and the passengers of both the buses sustaining simple and grievous injuries. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IP . 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 15 witnesses as PWs 1 to 15 and got marked 15 documents as Exts. P1 to P15. 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 examined the conductor of the bus driver by DW1. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 30.09.1994 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :3: months under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 210 of 1994 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 23.11.2000 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 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 CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :4: 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 is set aside and for the conviction under Section 279 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the conviction under Section 337 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the conviction under Section 338 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 19 days which he has already served and to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each to PWs 2,3 and 8 and a compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each to PWs 4 and 7 and a compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to PW5 and a compensation of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred only) to PW9 and a compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :5: one thousand and five hundred only) to PW6 respectively under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation as well as the fine before the trial court within three months from today. 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. 1160/2000 :6: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No.1160 of 2000 ---------------------------------------- 17th day of June, 2008 ORDER CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :7: