IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 752 of 2009()
1. BABURAJAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :26/02/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. NO. 752 of 2009
`````````````````
Dated: 26-02-2009
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No..496 of 2004
on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Palakkad for offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 challenges the conviction entered
and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable
under Sections 255(2), 279 and 338 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 12-10-1993 at about 2.30 p.m. the accused drove a
stage carriage bus bearing Reg. No. KL9A/6742 in a rash and
negligent manner endangering human life from east to west
through Kuzhalmannam-Kottayi road and when the bus reached
Periyapalam it dashed against P.W.1 who was riding a bicycle
Crl.R.P. No. 752 of 2009 -:2:-
resulting in P.W.1 sustaining grevious injuries including
fracture of the right 5th metacarpel bone.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned
offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 10
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 6 documents as Exts.
P1 to P6.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence
evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 19th June, 2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one
month each of the offences and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each
Crl.R.P. No. 752 of 2009 -:3:-
and on default to pay fine to suffer default sentence. On appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court,
Palakkad, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated, 15th
October 2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision.
6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction
entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the
conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently
after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence
in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere
with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed.
7. What now survives for consideration is the question
regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on
the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision
petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for
the said conviction. I am of the view that interest justice will be
Crl.R.P. No. 752 of 2009 -:4:-
adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter.
Accordingly for his conviction under Section 279 I.P.C. the
revision petiitoner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on
default to pay the fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for
15 days. For his conviction under Sec. 338 I.P.C. he is sentenced
to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a sum of Rs.
5,000/- as compensation to P.W.1 the injured under Sec. 357 (3)
Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner commits default in paying the
compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three
months. The petitioner is granted 45 days’ time to deposit before
the trial court the fine amount as well as the compensation.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009.
Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge.
/true copy/
Crl.R.P. No. 752 of 2009 -:5:-
ani.