Kerala High CourtRevision vs By Adv.Sri.M.Shaju Purushothaman on 19 December, 2005IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

             FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939

                              Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 89 of 2007


  IN CRA NO.126/2004 OF IIIRD ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 19.12.2005

    IN CC NO.703/1999 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, KOZHIKODE
                                DATED 22.01.2004




REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.


    RAGHAVAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, MALAYIL HOUSE,
    CHELANNUR, KANNANKARA AMSOM, DESOM.


    BY ADV.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN




RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:


    STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
    PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

    BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA V.



THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



DS/BKA/

                           P.UBAID, J.
                 ----------------------
                     Crl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007
               -------------------------
            Dated this the 09th day of February, 2018

                           ORDERThe revision petitioner herein challenges the

conviction and sentence against him underSections 279,337and338of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No. 703 of 1999

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He

faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 4.15 p.m.

on 26.05.1999, he drove the bus No. KL-10-A 3501 rashly

and negligently along the National Highway at Cheruvannur,

the said bus hit on a fire engine that came from the opposite

side due to the said rashness and negligence, and in the said

accident, some passengers in the two vehicles sustained

injuries.   One passenger in the bus driven by the accused

sustained grievous injury, and the others sustained only

simple injuries.     The police registered the crime on the

complaint     made    by   one   of   the   injured,   and   after

investigation, submitted final report in court.Crl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007-2-2.    The accused appeared before the learned

Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of

the accusation was read over and explained to him.         The

prosecution examined 16 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to

P15 documents in the trial court.3.    When examined underSection 313Cr.P.C.,

the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and

projected a defence that the accident in fact occurred due to

the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the

fire engine. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.4.    On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial

court found the accused guilty.        On conviction, he was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

each underSections 279and337IPC, and to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year underSection 338IPC.5.    Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

dated 22.01.2004, the accused approached the Court of

Session, Kozhikode, with Crl.A.No. 126 of 2004. In appeal,Crl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007-3-the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the

conviction, but reduced the sentence underSection 338IPC

to imprisonment for six months.      The other two sentences

were maintained. Now the accused is before this Court in

revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the

conviction and sentence.6.    On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

the materials, I find no ground or reason to interfere in the

findings and the conviction made by the courts below

concurrently.7.    PW1 to PW6 and PW11 are the persons who

sustained injuries in the accident. PW1 sustained grievous

injuries, and the others sustained only simple injuries.

These aspects are proved by the evidence of the doctors

examined as PW12 and PW13. PW1, who made complaint in

this case, identified the accused as the driver of the bus, and

stated that the accident occurred due to the over speed of

the bus driven by the accused. PW2 was the driver of theCrl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007-4-fire engine. His evidence is that the accident occurred only

because the accused over took another vehicle rashly and

negligently. During cross examination, he stated that he had

seen the accused driving the bus, and he affirmed that the

bus driven by the accused hit on the fire engine only due to

the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.

PW3 to PW6 also corroborated PW2 on all material aspects.

They were the firemen travelling in the fire engine. All are

consistent that the accident occurred due to the rashness

and negligence on the part of the bus driver.                  They also

identified the accused as the driver of the bus.8.    On      an   appreciation       of   the evidence   as

discussed above, I find that the prosecution case stands well

proved that PW1 to PW6 and PW11 had sustained simple

and grievous injuries in the accident where the bus driven by

the accused rashly and negligently hit on the fire engine

driven by PW2.         I find no ground for interference in the

conviction.       However,       I   feel   the    necessity   of   someCrl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007-5-modification and reduction in the sentence imposed by the

court below.9.    It appears that all the injured persons had

made claim for compensation, and they have already

obtained compensation.      PW1 had not sustained any bone

fracture.   One tooth was slightly fractured, and one tooth

was loosened.        On a consideration of all the relevant

aspects, I feel that the maximum fine sentence under the

law will be the adequate sentence in this case.In the result the conviction against the revision

petitioner underSections 279,337and338IPC in C.C.No.

703 of 1999 of the trial court is confirmed, and the revision

petition is disposed of accordingly.       However, the jail

sentence imposed by the courts below under the three

Sections will stand set aside, and instead, the revision

petitioner (accused) is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

each underSections 279and338IPC, or in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month each, and toCrl.R.P. No. 89 of 2007-6-pay a fine of Rs.500/- underSection 337IPC, or in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The revision

petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three

weeks from this date to make payment of the fine

voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the

trial court to realize the amount of fine, or enforce the

default sentence.Sd/-P.UBAID
                                               JUDGE
ds 15.02.2018