IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 605 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.355/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.834/1990 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ P.T. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 34, S/O. RAMAN, DRIVER, KEEZHOOR, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 ````````````````` Dated: 09-06-2008 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.834 of 1990 on the file of the J.F.C.M , J.F.C.M. I, Kannur for offences punishable under Sections.279 and 337 I.P.C. and Sections 134 (b) read with Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 1-8-1990 at about 9.05 a.m. while P.W.1 Pushpa was stepping into the stage carriage bus bearing Reg. No. KLN 5650 which was stopped at the bus stop near Taluk Office, Kannur for allowing passengers to alight, A2, the Cleaner of the bus gave bell and A1 the Driver (revision petitioner) drove the bus forward in a rash and negligent manner resulting in P.W.1 falling out of the bus sustaining injuries. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 -:2:- 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 13 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 13 and got marked 9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9. 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 26-10-1995 acquitted A2 the cleaner but convicted A1 the driver (revision petitioner) for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under Sec. 134 (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the conviction under Section 279 I.P.C. the Revision Petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and for the conviction under Sec. 337 I.P.C. he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 134 (b) read with Sec. 187 of the M.V. Act, he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks. The Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 -:3:- substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A. No. 355 of 1995 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 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 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 instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to P.W.1 as compensation Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 -:4:- under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner commits default in paying the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. For the conviction under Section 337 I.P.C. the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 605 of 2000 ````````````````` Dated: 09-06-2008 O R D E R