IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1708 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.659/2004 of ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC -II), KOZHIKODE. CC.889/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................................. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- C.P.MUSAFAR, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, POOKKATTE PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, IKKARAPADI. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- CRL.R.P No. 1708 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kozhikode in C.C.No.889 of 2000 on his file for offence under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Crl.A.No.659 of 2004. By the judgment delivered on 10.2.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode dismissed the appeal. Now this revision petition. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic, Kozhikode, who was examined as PW6, filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging the above offences with an allegation that at about 4.05 pm on 3.10.2000, the revision petitioner drove a car bearing registration No.KL- 10-H-2809 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life along the Ramanattukara bye-pass junction from south to north and hit down PW3 who was riding a bicycle in the opposite direction and as a result PW3 sustained grievance injuries. CRL.R.P No. 1708 of 2006 2 3. PW3 was initially taken to a private hospital. From there, he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, from where an intimation was conveyed to the police. PW7, Head Constable proceeded to the hospital and recorded Ext.P2 first information statement given by PW3. On the basis of Ext.P2, PW9, another Head Constable attached to the City Traffic Police Station, registered the case as Crime No.1436 of 2000 by Ext.P5 FIR. The investigation was taken over by PW7, another Head Constable. PW9, the Assistant Sub Inspector had also conducted part of the investigation. After verifying the investigation conducted by the PW7 and PW9, PW6, the Sub Inspector filed the charge sheet. 4. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty when the particulars of offence were read over and explained to him on his appearance in response to the process issued from the trial court. He was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. The plea of the revision petitioner is one of total denial. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced as above. 5. In support of the prosecution case, PW3 had given evidence. Ext.P1 wound certificate issued by PW2, would show that PW3 had sustained abrasion on right elbow and right side of the forehead and CRL.R.P No. 1708 of 2006 3 fracture of right tibia. PW1, a pedestrian had also attributed negligence against the revision petitioner. According to PW3, the over speed and driving to the wrong side caused the accident. Ext.P3, the scene mahazar wherein PW4 is an attester, would show that at the place of occurrence, the road was having a width of 6.5 meters and the incident took place at 2.5 meters west from the eastern tar end. Since the revision petitioner was driving from south to north, the spot of occurrence would show that he had driven to the wrong side and hit against PW3 who was riding the bicycle along the eastern side of the road as deposed by Pws 1 and 3. The spot of occurrence would show that there was negligence on the side of the revision petitioner. The identity of the revision petitioner was spoken by PWs1 and 3. There is no material to conclude that PWs1 and 3 had been falsely implicating the revision petitioner with any ulterior motive. There is no reason to disbelieve Pws 1 and 2. 6. Ext.P4 report would show that the vehicle was having no mechanical defect. So mechanical defect cannot be attributed as a cause of the incident. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find that the evidence on record was correctly analysed and arrived a concurrent conclusion of guilty. I find no error or illegality committed by the court below in arriving a conclusion of guilty. 7. It is seen that the revision petitioner was aged 20 years as on CRL.R.P No. 1708 of 2006 4 the date of occurrence. In the above circumstances, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code would meet the ends of justice. The revision petitioner shall be disqualified for a period of one year under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the result, this criminal revision petition allowed in part. While confirming the conviction the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The revision petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The revision petitioner is disqualified from holding any sort of driving license for one year. The revision petitioner shall surrender the driving licence before the trial court within 15 days so as to endorse the disqualification under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab