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. 198 of 2004(D) ----------------------------------------- (CRL.A. NO. 156/00 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (FAST TRACK), ADHOC-II, KOZHIKODE, CC NO. 710/96 OF THE COURT JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, KOZHIKODE) REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- SAJEEV KUMAR P.O., PUTHUPARAMBATH VEEDU, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAV, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 07/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== Crl.R.P.No.198 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. ORDER This revision is filed by the accused against the concurrent decision of the courts below whereby the accused stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 I.P.C. He is disqualified from driving both heavy and light vehicles for a period of two years. The courts below found that the materials on record proved the charge against the accused that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner which dashed against a motor cycle and one Afsal Ahamed died as a result of the accident. P.W.1, the brother-in-law of the deceased Afsal stated that on 3-4-1996 Afsal sustained serious injuries while driving a motor cycle on account of CRRP198/2004 -:2:- being hit by a vehicle and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in a hospital. He could identify the bus only on the basis of hearsay since he was not an eye witness. He lodged the complaint with the police. P.W.2 is an occurrence witness. He spoke of all the relevant details relating to the accident and gave a vivid statement of what had happened. He was a passenger in the bus driven by the accused and he identified the accused as the person who was driving the bus. He stated that he had seen the motor cycle and after the accident, he and other passengers alighted from the bus and saw the bike and its rider. They removed the rider and accompanied him to the hospital. He also stated that he had seen the incident with the light flowing from the headlight of the bus. Though he was subjected to cross examination, there was no material to disbelieve his version in relation to the accident. His version regarding the incident had been CRRP198/2004 -:3:- corroborated by P.W.3 who was also subjected to cross examination. The other relevant materials, including the scene mahazar are sufficient materials on record to hold that the concurrent decisions of the court below are correct and is not vitiated by any illegality or impropriety. I find no fault with the conviction and sentence. Revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.3/6/08