IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 196 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99/1997 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK) COURT NO. II, PALAKKAD, CC NO. 29/1995 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD) ...... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- N. YUSUF, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. NAINAN MUHAMMED, KUTHIRAPPARA, KUNISSERY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION: ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== Crl.R.P.No.196 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304A I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 I.P.C. to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks under Section 337 I.P.C. 2. The courts below concurrently upheld the prosecution version that the accused drove a bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against an ambassador car resulting in the death of four persons. 3. The courts below appreciated the material CRRP196/2004 -:2:- evidence and relied on the scene mahazar and other attendant evidence and came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The appreciation of the evidence cannot be held faulty. The accident took place on a highway and the defence version is that the bus was driven at a normal speed. The nature of the accident, the citus of impact, the result of the accident, the nature of the vehicle etc. are materials apart from those noticed by the courts below to come to the conclusion. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the court below. The sentence is only on the lower side. The conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction. Revision petition fails. It is hence dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl/3/6/2008