Kerala High Court
Benin Kurakose vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -1-
2025:KER:10378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2013 IN Crl.A
NO.54 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT I,
PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.03.2012 IN C.C. NO.231 OF 2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BENIN KURIAKOSE
S/O.KURIAKOSE, KANNATTIPUZHA HOUSE,
THENGELI MURI, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV
SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
(CRIME NO.819/2004 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE
STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -2-
2025:KER:10378
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by the accused impugning the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal.No. 54/2012. The offences alleged against the revision petitioner are under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 27.11.2004 at 8.15 a.m., the accused drove a Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No.KL-03/C-2358 through Kallissery- Vallamkulam public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit one Thankappan and PW3. Thankappan succumbed to injuries sustained on head and thereby the revision petitioner/accused committed the aforementioned offences.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to 10 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -3-
2025:KER:10378
4. The trial court, after a full fledged trail convicted and sentenced the accused in the following manner:
"The accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d., of payment of the fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months more for the offence U/s 304(A) of IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d., of payment of the fine to undergo S.I. for 1 month more for the offence U/s.279 of IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d, payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days more for the offence U/s.337 of IPC. Fine if realised Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to PW3 and Rs.7,500/- shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Thankappan as compensation U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C. Sentence shall run concurrently."
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and preferred Crl.Appeal No.54 of 2012.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -4-
2025:KER:10378
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this criminal revision petition.
8. Adv.T.K. Vipindas, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is legally sustainable and no interference of this Court is warranted.
9. Per contra, Adv.Mathew Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. Both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note the various illegalities, irregularities and improprieties in the prosecution case.
10. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove that the petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No witnesses spoke about the rashness and the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Instead, the witnesses deposed that the vehicle was driven in an over speed. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove that, death of the victim has direct CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -5- 2025:KER:10378 nexus with the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner.
11. It is further submitted that, both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to appreciate the scene mahazar in its correct perspective.
12. Adv.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that, when two views are possible, one showing the guilt of the accused and the other pointing out the innocence of the accused, the Court shall accept the latter view.
13. The impugned contention of the revision petitioner is that there is no proper identification of the revision petitioner/accused. Before going through the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 9 the eye witnesses, it could be seen that the accused were properly identified by the witnesses in the dock. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove that the injury sustained in the accident is the direct cause of the death and there is no proximity between the accident and the death. The accident occurred on 27.11.2004 while the death was on 17.01.2005. CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -6-
2025:KER:10378 In other words, there is a gap of less than two months from the date of occurrence and the date of death. It is further submitted that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution story.
14. I have gone through the records and I do not find anything to interfere with the findings of the appellate court.
15. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged several grounds, I do not find much force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the sentence imposed in this matter is too harsh and excessive and interference is warranted in the sentence. Considering the nature, gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed by the court in this matter under the various sections are to be modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court.
In the result,
(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. CRL.REV.PET NO. 2330 OF 2013 -7-
2025:KER:10378
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the trial court is modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court.
(iii) The fine imposed and the default sentence are maintained.
(iv) The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The trial court shall execute the sentence in the modified form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE vv