IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1501 of 2001() ------------------------------------------- CRA.414/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOD E CC.10 /1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED -------------------------------- P.K.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. MOIDEEN, VETTUVAN KANDIYIL HOUSE, MADAVOOR MUKKU, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.B.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.6973/2001 IN CRRP. NO.1501/2001 DISMISSED 18/05/2010 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 1501 OF 2001 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, driver of the stage carriage bus bearing No. KRD 3612 was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Though he challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal No.414 of 1999, learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Prosecution case is that on 9.7.1996 at about 7.45 AM petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Kozhikode-Balussery road and near Kakkodi Post-office, due to the reckless driving it hit bus bearing registration No. KL 10C 561 driven by PW12, which was coming in the opposite direction and caused hurt and grievous hurt to passengers of both the buses. Petitioner though pleaded not guilty, did not dispute the fact that he was the driver of the bus. The only contention was that the incident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner but due to PW12, the driver of the Crl. R.P.No.1501/01 2 other bus. Ext.P2 scene mahazar shows that the road was having sufficient width. The width of the road is six and a half metres. The road margin on the north was one metre and on the south two and a half metres. The incident took place two and a half metres south of the northern end of the tar end portion. The learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge on the data available in Ext.P2 along with the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3, 8 and 9, the passengers of the bus driven by the petitioner and PWs 4 and 6, the passengers of the bus driven by PW12 found that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged those findings, on going through the evidence it cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence was perverse warranting reappreciation. Even if the evidence is reappreciated, it can only be found that the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The evidence would also establish that due to such rash and negligent driving, hurt and grievous hurt were caused to PWs 1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 as proved by Exts.P6, P8, P9 to P11 and P13 wound certificates which proved by the evidence of the Doctors Pws Crl. R.P.No.1501/01 3 17 and 18. Therefore conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and correct. 3. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 338 apart from a fine of Rs.1,000/- and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 apart from a fine of Rs.500 and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 279 apart from a fine of Rs.1,000/-. All the substantial sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge reconsidered the question of sentence and finding that there is steady increase of motor accidents caused by rash and negligent driving and therefore deterrent punishment is warranted, confirmed the sentence. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident occurred in 1996 and at this distant point of time, petitioner may not be sent to jail and leniency may be shown. 4. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, considering the frequency of motor accidents and that too caused by rash and Crl. R.P.No.1501/01 4 negligent driving by the drivers of stage carriage buses, sentence for the offences cannot be too lenient as it would only encourage rash and negligent driving. At the same time, considering the fact that the incident occurred in July 1996 and for the last more than 14 years, the sentence awarded for the offences under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code is to be modified to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code is only to be confirmed. The revision petition is partly allowed. Confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and the conviction for the offence under Section 338 are confirmed. The sentence for the offence under Section 338 is modified to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Substantial sentence for all the offences shall run concurrently. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (Judge) vps Crl. R.P.No.1501/01 5 Crl. R.P.No.1501/01 6