IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 837 of 1998()
1. RASHEED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :06/03/2007
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J
=================================
CRL. R.P. NO. 837 OF 1998
=================================
Dated this the 6th day of March 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the
offence under section 279 and to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month for the offence under section 338 IPC. No
separate sentence is awarded for the offence under section 337
IPC. The prosecution case is that on 31.07.1991 at about 7.15
a.m the bus driven by the revision petitioner/accused, that was
proceeding from east-west hit on another bus that came from
opposite direction alleging that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused/revision
petitioner. PW7 sustained multiple fractures and PW8 sustained
fracture of her nasal bone. The rest of the witnesses have also
sustained minor injuries. Both the courts below have held that
the accused is guilty of rash and negligent driving.
CRL. R.P. NO. 837 OF 1998 : 2 :
2. I find that the scene mahazar clearly indicated that the
bus driven by the revision petitioner was totally on the wrong
side. The contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner
that it was a rainy day and that the visibility was poor and both
the vehicles has applied brake and that the accident was
unavoidable, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the
vehicle was a public career and the revision petitioner ought to
have been careful. Had he driven the vehicle in a normal speed
in the above conditions the accident could have been averted.
The report of the A.M.V.I showed that there was no mechanical
defect to the vehicle. In the circumstances, I find no reason to
interfere in the findings of the courts below.
3. Considering the fact that the incident had taken place
more than 15 years ago and the revision petitioner was facing so
far under the ordeal of prosecution and court proceedings, I find
that the sentence is liable to be modified. The sentence for the
offence under section 338 is modified to imprisonment till rising
of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW7
CRL. R.P. NO. 837 OF 1998 : 3 :
who sustained multiple fractures and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence is awarded
for the offences under Section 279 and 337 IPC. The revision
petitioner is granted one month’s time from today onwards to
pay the amount of compensation. The revision petitioner shall
appear before Judicial First Class Court, Kodungallur on
30.04.2007 to receive sentence.
The Crl. R.P is disposed of accordingly.
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.
RV
CRL. R.P. NO. 837 OF 1998 : 4 :