IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 117 of 2000()
1. GOPINATHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.REJI MATHEW KAVALAYIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :20/09/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.117 of 2000
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner/accused stands convicted for the
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under
Section 279 IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence under
Section 304(A) IPC. No separate sentence is awarded for the
offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. Further, the accused
is disqualified to drive a motor vehicle for a period of one year.
2. The prosecution case is that the revision petitioner/
accused being the driver of a bus bearing registration No. KL-
01/C 7290 named S.R.M. on 3.8.1994 at 6 p.m. drove the bus
through M.C. road from north to south in over speed and in a
rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit
on another bus KL-01/C 7025 by name Ruby and on account of
injuries sustained in the accident three persons died and a
number of persons sustained injuries. CWs’ 2 and 7 have
sustained fractures and CW7 lost his teeth.
CRRP117/2000 Page numbers
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 21 and Exts. P1 to P14.
4. The death of three persons, namely Saidukunju,
Purushothaman Nair and Soosamma, on account of injuries
sustained in the accident has been proved from the testimony of
PWs’ 1 to 11 as well as from Exts. P3 to P5 inquest reports and
Exts. P11 and P12 reports of postmortem which were proved by
PW19, the Asst. Surgeon and PW21, the investigating officer.
PW20 is the ASI, who registered the crime and conducted the
inquest. PW18, the Joint RTO who inspected the vehicle has
proved Exts. P9 and P10 certificates of inspection of the vehicle.
Of the prosecution occurrence witnesses examined PWs’ 1 to 3,
7 and 10 turned hostile. PWs’ 4 to 6 and PWs’ 11 and 12 have
supported the prosecution version. PW7 has deposed that it is
due to the negligence of PW12, the driver of the Ruby bus, that
the bus driven by the accused dashed against. The witnesses are
passengers of Ruby bus. It has come out in evidence that there
was rain at the time of the incident and the windows on the sides
of the buses were closed. Hence, the evidence of the witnesses
CRRP117/2000 Page numbers
who supported the prosecution itself is not helpful. But, I find
that Ext. P2 scene mahazar and Ext. P8 scene plan clearly show
that when the accident took place the bus driven by the accused
was on the wrong side. The bus was proceeding to the south and
the other bus coming from the opposite direction. The tarred
portion of the road had width of 6.2 mtrs. At the place of
occurrence there was a curve. The incident has taken place at
1.2 mtrs. east of the western tar end. The above as well as the
lying of the vehicle noted in the scene mahazar clearly indicate
that the incident took place on the wrong side of the bus driven
by the accused. Moreover, the vehicle inspection reports shows
that the right side of the body 100 cm. from front to rear up to
755 cm. was fully damaged, seats at the area was totally
damaged, platform of the area was damaged and center post of
the area bent. The front right side of the bus driven by the
accused hit on the right side of Ruby bus and sustained damage.
The witnesses i.e., 4 to 6 and 11 and 12 have identified the
accused as the driver of the bus. In the circumstances, I find no
reason to deviate from the findings of the court below. The
CRRP117/2000 Page numbers
conviction is confirmed.
5. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for
leniency pointing out that the incident has taken place in the
year 1994 and more than 10 years have elapsed since the
commencement of the proceedings. All the same, the
irresponsible acts of the accused resulted in loss of life. In the
circumstances, the sentence imposed for the offence under
Section 304(A) IPC is modified to undergo simple imprisonment
for four months and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to
the legal representatives of the deceased and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. No separate
sentence is awarded with respect to the rest of the offences.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl
CRRP117/2000 Page numbers