High Court Kerala High Court

Padinjareveettil Manoj vs S.I. Of Police on 22 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Padinjareveettil Manoj vs S.I. Of Police on 22 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 109 of 2001()



1. PADINJAREVEETTIL MANOJ
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. S.I. OF POLICE, KOLATHUR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :22/10/2007

 O R D E R
                       K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
                   ---------------------------------------------
                       Crl.R.P.No.109 of 2001
                   ---------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007


                                O R D E R

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offences

under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for three months each for the offences under Sections 279 and

337 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 30.4.1994 at about

8.35 a.m., the accused being driver of the bus bearing

registration No.KL.10B.3663 drove it in a rash and negligent

manner so as to endanger human life along the Perinthalmanna-

Kulathur public road and when it reached at Onappada hit

against a side wall and as a result of which CWs’ 1 to 18, the

passengers in the bus sustained injuries.

3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the

testimony of PWs’ 1 to 24 and Exts. P1 to P24.

4. It is found from the evidence of the witnesses that the

bus was driven in over speed and that there was no mechanical

defect to the vehicle. Of course, the passengers have sustained

only minor injuries as per the evidence of PWs’ 10 and 24, the

CRRP109/2001 2

doctors, and Exts. P4 to P19 and Ext. P20 to P22 wound

certificates. PW14 is the AMVI and Ext. P3 is the inspection

report of the vehicle. In the circumstances and in view of the

evidence of the witnesses and the fact that the identity stands

proved from Ext. P24 trip sheet, I find that no interference is

called for. Hence, the conviction is confirmed.

5. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for

leniency pointing out that about 13 years have elapsed since the

commencement of the proceedings and the accused was so far

facing the ordeal of criminal proceedings. In the circumstances,

I find that the sentence of imprisonment can be avoided. Hence,

the sentence is modified to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks for the

offence under Section 279 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and

in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days for the

offence under Section 337 IPC.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.





                                             K.R.UDAYABHANU,
                                                   JUDGE
csl

CRRP109/2001    3




                     K.R.UDAYABHANU, J




                    Crl.M.C.No.3021/2002

                         ORDER




                         18/10/2007

CRRP109/2001    4