IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1874 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.104/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- K.C.BENNY, S/O. CHACKO, KOLICHAL, KALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1874 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, with fine and with default sentence for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months, with fine and with default sentence under Section 304 IPC. 2. The concurrent orders of the courts below have found the petitioner guilty of having driven a stage carriage in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety, leading to the death of a student of I standard of a school at about 12.30 p.m. on 8.8.1995. The tyres of the bus ran over the head of the victim and the boy died instantaneously. He was then six years old. 3. The scene of occurrence is a public road lying east to west. The body of the victim was found on the southern margin of the Cr.R.P.1874/04 Page numbers tar road, run by the vehicle. The offending vehicle was moving from east to west. PWs.1, 2 and 3 eye witnesses were believed by the courts below, apart from PW9, the 13 year old sister of the victim, who stated that she and her brother were moving together and the bus came and hit her brother. 4. Though the learned counsel for the accused points out that the version of PW9 was that they were moving through the northern side of the road, I do not deem it appropriate to attribute such persuasion to that 13 year old witness when she speaks about the directions. It would also be unsafe to take her evidence in its explicit details when she would have been obviously under the trauma of having lost her younger brother right in front of her eyes. It may also be true that PWs.1 to 3 stated that they came to the scene of occurrence immediately on hearing cries and therefore, they cannot be treated stricto senso as eye witnesses. However, the fact remains that the identity of the bus involved in the accident is established through PWs.1 to 3. The involvement of the accused in driving the vehicle is also Cr.R.P.1874/04 Page numbers established. PWs.1 to 3 are not shown to have had any animosity to the accused. The accused has not denied the fact that the child was hit and run and that the vehicle driven by him was involved in the accident. His statement under Section 313 Cr.PC is a total denial of the incident in toto. He does not have even a defence version, though his learned counsel attempted to point out that the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report does not specifically state that there are blood stains on the body of the vehicle as such and therefore, it could be a case of hit and run over by some other vehicle which was moving ahead of the vehicle driven by the accused. Such a story cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the accused, either through cross examination of the prosecution witnesses or through his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, had ever projected such a version. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts proved by legal evidence on record, the attendant circumstances and probabilities, the concurrent decision of the courts below, Cr.R.P.1874/04 Page numbers holding the accused revision petitioner guilty of the offences charged, cannot be said to be wrong, irregular or improper, warranting interference under Section 397 Cr.PC. Equally so is the case of the sentence imposed. I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.8/7.