IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1016 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.205/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ADHOC II, THALASSERY CC.206/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ K.THOMAS @ JOSE, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS, KUTTIYEL HOUSE, VATTIYANTHODE, MATTARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1016 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 26.03. 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec.397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.206 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Mattannur for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 18.11.96 at about 8.15 a.m., the revision petitioner drove a stage carrier bus bearing Registration No.KRN 2754 in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life along the public road in front of Ulikkal Post Office building and while attempting to overtake another bus bearing Reg.No.KL13 B 1341, he dashed against the rear side of the bus which he was overtaking resulting in 25 passengers, including PW6, in both the buses sustaining simple injuries. 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 Crl.R.P.No.1016/2009 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 20 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 20 and got marked 15 documents as Exts. P1 to 15. From out of the witnesses, Pws,1 to 9 and 12 are the injured passengers of whom PW6 alone supported the prosecution. The other injured witnesses are alleged to have been compensated by the revision petitioner which explains for their hostility in the witness box. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 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 did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 7.05.2002 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC with a direction that the sentences should run concurrently . On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thalassery as Crl.R.P.No.1016/2009 -:3:- Crl.Appeal No.205 of 2002, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 1.09.2008, confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough 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 petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision Crl.R.P.No.1016/2009 -:4:- petitioner is set aside and instead for his conviction under Sections 279 and 337 IPC the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- for each of the offences PW6/the injured as compensation. The revision petitioner is given one month's time from today to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- before the trial court, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj