IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 307 of 2000 -------------------------------------------- CRA.46/1993 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.137/1992 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: POTHUKATTIL VELAYUDHAN, S/O PERU, ANGADIPURAM AMSOM, PARIYAPURAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PP SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2000 -------------------------- ORDER The accused in C.C.No.137/92 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Perinthalmanna, who is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304(A) IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 337 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 279 IPC with benefit, however, of the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, is the petitioner in this revision, assailing the correctness of the conviction and sentence, which was also confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. CRRP 307/00 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 11.30 a.m. On 18.4.1992, while PWs 4 and 5 and one Pulikkal Usman, S/o Aboobacker were walking along the northern side of the road from Angadipuram to Ambalappadi Bus Stop, the accused drove stage carriage bus bearing Reg.No.KLG-5607, which was proceeding along Valancheri- Perinthalmanna public road towards Perinthalmanna and hit down PW4 and Pulikkal Usman causing simple injuries to PW4 and grievous injuries to Usman; that at about 6 p.m. on the same day, the said Usman succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident while undergoing treatment in Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna and thereby, the petitioner/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. 3. The prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses, of whom, PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 were occurrence witnesses; PW3 is an attestor to Exhibit P1 scene mahazar; PWs 6 and 7 are Doctors; PW8 is CRRP 307/00 3 the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the bus involved in the accident and issued Exhibit P5 report of inspection; PW9 is the Head Constable, who had gone to the Moulana Hospital and recorded the first information statement of PW4 and registered the crime and PW10 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The occurrence, which resulted in the death of Usman, the accident alleged as also the identity of the accused as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident are not assailed before me. What is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that PWs 1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution case and inasmuch as they do not support the prosecution case of the petitioner having driven the stage carriage bus involved in the accident in a rash and negligent manner, the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 by itself should not have been acted upon by the courts below to enter into a conviction of the petitioner as CRRP 307/00 4 their evidence is not sufficient, according to the learned counsel, to enter into a conviction of the petitioner/driver of the stage carriage bus. All the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has taken me through the entire evidence of those witnesses, has found it impossible to convince me as to how the evidence tendered by PWs 4 and 5 is not sufficient to establish the negligence when the scene of occurrence is only 77 cms towards south from the northern tarred end of the road, which is having a width of nine metres and the bus, as seen from the scene mahazar, has run off from the road towards north into the footpath up to the slab of the gutter on the northern side of the footpath leaving only the back portion of the bus within three metres of the northern portion of the road. 5. Petitioner, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has no explanation at all as to how the occurrence has taken place if at all it was not by CRRP 307/00 5 reason of his negligence that the occurrence has taken place. The evidence has convincingly established the rash and negligent manner in which the petitioner was driving the stage carriage bus, which has caused the accident, causing simple injuries to PW4 and grievous injuries to Usman, who later succumbed to the injuries on the same day on account of the seriousness of the injuries sustained to him. The courts below have concurrently found, on a proper appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, that the petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below even on an appreciation of the entire evidence in the case. 6. It is further contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentences awarded by the courts below are highly excessive, as for offence under Section 279 IPC CRRP 307/00 6 simple imprisonment for six months is awarded; for offence under Section 337 IPC, the maximum fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed and for offence under Section 304(A) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- is imposed. One cannot forget the principle in punitive law that the punishment should not be a flee bite sentence, but has to bear proportion to the grievousness of the offence. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the only modification that requires to be made in the sentence is to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. In the result, allowing this revision in part, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under Section 304(A) IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months keeping intact the sentence of fine and default sentence imposed CRRP 307/00 7 thereunder as also the sentence awarded for offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC. The benefit of concurrency awarded in relation to substantive sentences of imprisonment to the petitioner is maintained. 21st May, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRRP 307/00 8 K.P.Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2000 -------------------------- ORDER 21st May, 2009