Rajith vs Gopalan M.K. on 16 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3372 of 2007()


1. RAJITH, AGED 29 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GOPALAN M.K., AGED 59 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :16/02/2009

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                        = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       Crl.R.P.No.3372 of 2007
                      = == = = = = = = = = = ==
                          Dated: 16.02.2009

                              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.580 of 2001 on the file

of the J.F.C.M, Kunnamangalam for offences punishable under

Sections.279 and 338 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the

sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences .

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as

follows:

On 11.03.2000 at about 7.30 pm, the accused drove an

Ambassador car bearing registration No.KLL 6030 along the REC-

Mukkom public road from west to east and dashed against PW1, a

scootarist who was proceeding from east to west along the said road.

Since the revision petitioner was driving the car in a rash and

negligent manner so as to endanger to the human life, PW1, the

scootarist sustained severe injuries. The accused has thereby

committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC.

Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:2:-

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 8 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 8 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

found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under

Sections 279 & 338 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC and simple

imprisonment for six months under section 338 IPC. On appeal

preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court,

Kozhikode, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.07.06

Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:3:-

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 of PW1, the injured, PWs 4

and 5, who are the independent eye witnesses to the occurrence and

having due regard to the situous of the occurrence. The said finding

is a pure finding of the fact and this Court sitting in revision will be

loathe to interfere with the said finding. The conviction 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 aforesaid offences,

particularly, when the award has been passed against him as well by

Crl.R.P.No.3372/07 -:4:-

the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal concerned. I am of the view that

interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be

passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision

petitioner is set aside. For his conviction under Section 279 IPC, he is

sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on

default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For

his conviction under Section 338 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine

to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days. The petitioner is given

three weeks time from today to deposit the fine amount before the

trial court.

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the

conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

sj