Kerala High Court
T.K.Imthias vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2025
2025:KER:84820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2976 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2006 IN Crl.A NO.302 OF
2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2004 IN CC NO.645
OF 2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER:
T.K.IMTHIAS
S/O.ABOOBACKER, KARIMBILA,
BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SALIM KUMAR A.
SHRI.AKHIL J.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV.
SMT SEENA C, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:84820
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2025
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) - III, Kasaragod, finding the petitioner / accused guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, are under challenge in this revision petition filed at the instance of the accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 02.06.2001, at about 11 am, the accused drove a car in rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger the human life along Badiadka - Perla public road and caused the said vehicle to hit against a motorcycle coming in the opposite direction resulting in the fall of the riders to the public road and getting injured, and thereafter, the accused drove away without stopping the vehicle and got the car again hit against another 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -3- autorickshaw at a place called Athirppallam in Badiadka - Mulleria road, causing injuries to the driver of the autorickshaw, who later on succumbed to those injuries.
3. The Station House Officer, Badiadka, after the completion of the investigation, filed the Final Report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences. The Final Report was taken on to files by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod, as C.C.No.645 of 2001 and the proceedings commenced. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 18 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 18, and 14 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P14 on the part of the prosecution. The accused did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After the analysis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and convicted him thereunder. The petitioner / accused was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for two months under Section 337 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one year under 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -4- Section 304A IPC, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The driving licence of the accused was also ordered to be suspended for a period of six months. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) - III, Kasaragod, who considered Crl.A.No302 of 2004, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here with this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the identity of the accused could not be established by the prosecution, and hence the findings of the court below, are patently illegal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused ran away immediately after 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -5- the incident, and he could not be apprehended at that time. It is also pointed out that the chances of identification of the accused by the police personnel, who are said to have seen the offending vehicle overtaking the police jeep and moving forward, are apparently bleak. Thus, it is pointed out that the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused as the person who committed the crime, would strike on the root of the prosecution case.
6. The challenge in the above regard has been rightly dealt with by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has observed in the impugned judgment that the prosecution has successfully brought out by producing Ext.P4 - wound certificate, that the accused also sustained injuries in the aforesaid accident. Ext.P4 - certificate is seen to have been proved in the proper manner before the Trial Court. Furthermore, it is observed by the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment that the accused did not take up a contention that he was not the person, who had driven the car at the time of the accident. It is pertinent to note that apart from 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -6- giving casual statements denying the question put under Section 313 Cr.P.C, there is absolutely no statement tendered by the accused to the effect that he was not the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, the challenge raised by the petitioner that his identity could not be established before the Trial Court, is devoid of merit. Coupled with the aforesaid aspect, the evidence tendered by PWs 8 to 10, who are the police officers, who were said to have followed the accused in a police jeep, would leave no room for any doubt as to the identity of the accused. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard is totally unsustainable.
7. On going through the prosecution records as well as the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction, since the aforesaid judgments are rendered on the basis of sound judicial reasonings.
2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -7-
8. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -8- not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows:
Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -9- appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction." 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is not possible for this Court to unsettle the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to the commission of the offence by the petitioner. Needless to say the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC, is perfectly in order.
10. As regards the sentence awarded, it is seen that the petitioner had been sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offences under Sections 304A and 338 IPC, and Simple Imprisonment for three and two months respectively for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The Trial Court has directed the aforesaid sentences to run concurrently. The net effect of the 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -10- aforesaid order is that the petitioner has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year altogether.
11. Having regard to the fact that the incident happened about two decades before, and the petitioner had to undergo the ordeals of the criminal prosecution throughout these years, I deem it appropriate to reduce the term of imprisonment awarded by the courts below to three months coupled with a direction to pay fine Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner / accused will undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further term of three months.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part as follows:
(i) The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, convicting the petitioner / accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, are hereby confirmed.
2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -11-
(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the accused is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) under Section 304A IPC.
(iii) No separate punishment is awarded for the other offences found against the petitioner / accused.
(iv) In the event of non-payment of fine as directed above, the petitioner / accused will undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further term of three months.
(v) Direction of the Trial Court on the suspension of licence, is retained as such.
(vi) The petitioner / accused shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from today to undergo the sentence imposed as per this order.
The Registry shall forward a copy of this order, along with relevant case records to the Trial Court forthwith, with a direction to 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -12- the learned Magistrate to enforce the sentence imposed in accordance with this order. Sd/- G. GIRISH JUDGE ded/07.11.2025