IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1160 of 2000()
1. SUDHAKARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 1160 of 2008
====================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.83 of
1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram
for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC,
challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed
against him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
338 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 25.06.1993, the revision petitioner/accused drove a
stage carrier bus bearing registration No. KRM 5879 from east to
west along the Malappuram-Kozhikode road in a rash and
negligent manner endangering human life. When the bus
reached Charankuth at about 12.30 p.m., the bus driven by the
revision petitioner/accused dashed against another bus bearing
registration No. KRM 1400 coming from the opposite direction
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :2:
resulting in the driver of the second bus and the passengers of
both the buses sustaining simple and grievous injuries. The
accused has thereby committed offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 IP .
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 15
witnesses as PWs 1 to 15 and got marked 15 documents as Exts.
P1 to P15.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused was questioned under Section 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 examined the
conductor of the bus driver by DW1.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 30.09.1994 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :3:
months under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three
months under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for one
year under Section 338 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision
petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 210 of 1994 before the Sessions
Court, Manjeri, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment
dated 23.11.2000 confirmed the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this
Revision.
6. Even though 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
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :4:
petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for
the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will
be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner is set aside and for the conviction under Section 279
IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for 15 days. For the conviction under Section 337
IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for 10 days. For the conviction under Section 338
IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to simple imprisonment
for 19 days which he has already served and to pay a
compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each to
PWs 2,3 and 8 and a compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
hundred only) each to PWs 4 and 7 and a compensation of
Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to PW5 and a
compensation of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five
hundred only) to PW9 and a compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :5:
one thousand and five hundred only) to PW6 respectively under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the
compensation as well as the fine before the trial court within
three months from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :6:
V. RAMKUMAR, J
————————————
CRL. R.P. No.1160 of 2000
—————————————-
17th day of June, 2008
ORDER
CRL.R.P. No. 1160/2000 :7: