IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 698 of 1998(A) ------------------------------ CRA.63/1993 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.40/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------ THANKAPPAN, SON OF GOVINDAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUNDAKAYAM, R.P.C. COLONY ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.REV. PET. NO.698 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 O R D E R ----------- Revision petitioner, who was the driver of a mini lorry and accused in C.C. No.40 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. For the conviction under Section 279 he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 337 IPC he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and for the conviction under Section 304-A IPC he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed in Crl. Appeal No.63 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam. Hence this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as CRL. R.P.. NO.698 OF 1998 -: 2 :- follows: Revision Petitioner was driving a mini lorry along the Kanjirappally-Erumeli road from north to south with its tarred portion having a width of 4.45 metres. The occurrence was on 24.9.1990 at 11.45 a.m. The exact scene of occurrence is 20 cms. to the east of the western tar end of the road. Revision Petitioner, who was driving the mini lorry from north to south, had dashed against an autorikshaw driven by P.W1 from south to north along the western side of the road. The autorikshaw overturned and the two lady passengers inside the autorikshaw succumbed to the injuries sustained in the collision. P.W.1, who was the driver of the autorikshaw, also sustained injuries. 3. Out of the 14 prosecution witnesses, 5 supported the prosecution. P.W.1 was none other than the driver of the autorikshaw in which the two lady passengers were travelling. P.W.4 was a pedestrian who was proceeding from south to north and he saw the occurrence while he was behind the autorikshaw driven by P.W.1 P.W.5 was another pedestrian who was proceeding to Erumeli from Kanjirappally area. The lorry came from his behind and hit on the autorikshaw which CRL. R.P.. NO.698 OF 1998 -: 3 :- was on the western side of the road. 4. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there was no acceptable evidence to prove the identity of the Revision Petitioner as the driver of the mini lorry. P.W.1, driver of the autorikshaw, has clearly identified the Revision Petitioner as the driver of the mini lorry. P.W.4, who was also proceeding from south to north along the western side of the road, has also clearly identified the Revision Petitioner as the driver of the mini lorry. In the case of P.W.5, even though he too sated that the revision petitioner was the driver of the mini lorry, his identification may not be fully acceptable since he was proceeding from north to south along the eastern side of the public and the lorry ran past him from behind and dashed against the autorikshaw on the western side of the road. He could not have seen the driver of the mini lorry when it sped past him at the time of collision since he must have been at the rear side of the lorry. However, the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is credible enough to prove the prosecution case. The occurrence took place at the extreme wrong side of the Revision Petitioner and no satisfactory explanation was CRL. R.P.. NO.698 OF 1998 -: 4 :- forthcoming from the Revision Petition as to why the lorry driven by him crossed over to the extreme wrong side of the road so as to dash it against the autorikshaw. Under these circumstances, the conviction entered against the Revision Petitioner cannot be faulted. 5. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the Revision Petition. Having regarding to the fact that the Revision Petition is a first offender and the prosecution has no case that he is involved in any other similar offence, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment awarded to him under Section 279 IPC to four months and under Section 304-A IPC to six months. The sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner under Section 337 IPC as well as the sentence of fine are sustained. In the result, this Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered, but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. vsv V. RAMKUMAR, J. ===================== CRL. R.P. NO.698 OF 1998 ===================== O R D E R ------------------------------------------- 28TH JULY, 2008