IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3312 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.16/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.774/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HASSAN KOYA, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, CHERYLANATTIL HOUSE, FEROKE AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3312 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 Order The challenge in this revision is the finding concurrently passed by the two courts below holding him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to S.I. for three months each for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 and was sentenced to S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 338 of the I.P.C. The incident took place at 8 AM on 6.5.1998 on the Manjeri-Calicut road when the bus admittedly driven by the petitioner was proceeding to Manjeri. It was alleged that the bus was driven by him in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when the bus was negotiating a curve, the bus capsized. It was alleged that the bus happened to capsize due to uncontrollable speed. The main contention advanced by the accused before the court below was that the vehicle happened to capsize due to mechanical defect. It was contended by him that two leaves on the right side of the bus broke and because of the breakage of the leaves, the bus capsized. P.W.22, the AMVI was cross- Crl.R.P.3312/03 2 examined in extenso. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate referred to the evidence given by P.W.22 where the defence version was totally brushed aside by P.W.22 giving valid and convincing reasons. Among other grounds, it was also stated that if the leaf set on the right side had broken prior to the incident, then the vehicle must have capsized towards the right side whereas the vehicle in fact capsized to the left side. Giving the details and reasons, it was stated by P.W.22 that the breakage did take place only after the accident. The leaf set was in a shining condition. That was also stated as one of the reasons to say that it was not old so as to cause breakage while the vehicle was being driven. 2. P.Ws.5, 11 and 20 have stated that the vehicle was driven at high speed with that much rashness that the passengers in the bus were actually complaining of the terrific speed. The statement given by one of the witnesses that before the vehicle capsized, there was a loud sound, which according to the learned counsel would probablise the case of the accused that it was only after the breakage, the vehicle capsized. P.W.20, a college Professor who was also one of the passengers has stated Crl.R.P.3312/03 3 in uncontrovertible terms that the vehicle was driven at terrific speed and that the driver negotiated the curve without reducing the speed. The evidence so given by P.Ws.5, 11 and 20, would prove to the hilt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after analysing the evidence, has confirmed the conviction. I find no material to hold otherwise. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that since the incident took place several years back, leniency may be shown to the accused. Several persons had sustained serious injuries in the accident. Unless deterrent punishment is awarded to reckless drivers, it will not give a proper signal to such potential offenders. Awarding flee bite sentence was deprecated by the Apex Court several times. However, considering all the aspects, the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 338 IPC is altered to S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default he will undergo S.I. for one month. The order passed by the learned Magistrate declaring disqualification from driving the vehicle for two years stands confirmed. Crl.R.P.3312/03 4 The Revision is disposed of as above. The learned Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence without delay. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.R.P.3312/03 5