Kerala High Court
Manikantan @ Sreekumaran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 886 of 2006
----------------------------
JUDGMENT IN CRA 156/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 25-08-2005
JUDGMENT IN CC 884/1995 of J.M.F.C.-II, NEYYATTINKARA DATED
30-03-1998
------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-
-----------------------------------------
MANIKANTAN @ SREEKUMARAN NAIR,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, MAVILAMKUZHY MELE PUTHEN VEEDU,
KULATHUMMAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADV.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :-
--------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of March 2018
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC in C.C. No.884/1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 9 a.m. on 18.3.1995, he drove the lorry No.KLO-1B 4156 rashly and negligently along the Vlathankara-Poozhikunnu pocket road, the said lorry hit on a mini bus No.KL-01-2296 at the Plamoottukkada Junction, where the pocket road joints Plamoottukkada-Mavilakkadavu Public road, and in the said accident, some persons sustained simple and grievous injuries, and one passenger in the mini bus sustained fatal injuries, to which he succumbed within no time. The police registered the crime on the F.I.Statement given by one of the injured persons, and after investigation, submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty, when the Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006 -: 2 :- substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.
2. The prosecution examined 35 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P38 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Sections 304(A) and 338 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 337 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.3.1998, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram with Crl.A. No.156/1998. In appeal, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006 -: 3 :- sentence under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months each, and the sentence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was set aside for the reason that separate sentence is not necessary. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings and the conviction made by the courts below under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC. Though the prosecution examined so many witnesses, the material witnesses are PW1 and PW3. Many of the material witnesses turned hostile. PW1 is the first informant, and PW2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PW3 is another person, who sustained injuries. He was not a passenger in the mini bus. Both PW1 and PW3 are definite and consistent that the alleged accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver, and both of them identified the accused as the driver of the lorry.
5. Admittedly, the lorry driven by the accused came from the pocket road, and the mini bus was proceeding from Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006 -: 4 :- north to south along the main road. The accident occurred at the road junction, where the pocket road meets the main road. The scene plan proved by the Village Officer shows that the collision in fact occurred some what at the eastern side of the main road. There is reason to believe that the mini bus was at the correct side of the road, and the lorry happened to hit on the bus only because the lorry driver took his lorry to the wrong side while entering the main road. Had the lorry driver stopped the vehicle at the junction to see whether any other vehicle was coming from either side, the alleged accident would not have occurred. I find, on an appreciation of the evidence, that the lorry driven by the accused happened to hit on the mini bus only because he carelessly and negligently took the lorry to the main road at the road junction without waiting to see whether any vehicle was coming from either side along the main road. This is the negligence and careless on the part of the accused, spoken to by PW1 and PW3, and proved by the other circumstances, including the scene plan. I find that on factual aspects, the case of the prosecution stands well proved. Though many of the material witnesses Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006 -: 5 :- turned hostile, PW1 and PW3 supported the prosecution, they very well identified the accused as the driver of the lorry, and stated how exactly the accident occurred. I find no reason to reject their evidence, or to disbelieve them.
6. Now the question of sentence. Though the trial court imposed sentence separately under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, the appellate court set aside the sentences in view of the sentence under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC. The sentence under these two Sections stands already modified and reduced in appeal to simple imprisonment for three months. This must be the minimum sentence in view of Section 354(4) Cr.P.C. The accident occurred in 1995, and we are now at the beginning of 2018. The accused was aged 30 years on the date of accident. On a consideration of the various aspects, including the long lapse of years, and also the age and other circumstances of the accused, I feel that there can be a slight deviation from the minimum sentence, and the substantive sentence can be further reduced to simple imprisonment for two months.
Crl.R.P. No.886 of 2006-: 6 :-
In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC in C.C. No. 884/1995 is confirmed in revision, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the sentence imposed by the court below under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC will stand further modified, and reduced to simple imprisonment for two months each. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to serve out the modified sentence, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/15.3.2018