Kerala High Court
Jahfer E.P vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 1 2025:KER:44761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 88 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2014 IN CC NO.742 OF
2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
PERINTHALMANNA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2017
IN Crl.A NO.301 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III,
MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPPONDENT:
JAHFER E.P
S/O ABDU, ITTEPPADAN HOUSE, VELLAYOOR PO,
KALIKAVU VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BABU JOSEPH PYNADATH (AMICUS CURIAE)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
WANDOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 12/6/2025, THE COURT ON 19.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 2 2025:KER:44761
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th June, 2025
ORDER
In this revision petition, the revision petitioner assails the judgment in Crl.A No.301/2014 of Sessions Court, Manjeri, by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against him in C.C.No.742/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
2. Prosecution case is that on 22.8.2012 at about 4 pm, accused drove a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-42/B 524 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, through Shariyil-Parayan Kunnu Public Road and knocked down a pedestrian named Leela who was walking through the side of the said road. The victim Leela sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and though she was taken to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries on the next day, ie. on 23.8.2012.
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 3 2025:KER:44761 Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
3. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exts.P1 to P8. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
4. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC.
5. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.301/2014, before the Sessions Court, Manjeri was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence.
6. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in analysing the evidence in Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 4 2025:KER:44761 its correct perspective; that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. It was also contended that there is no reliable oral or documentary evidence to show that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident; that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence and therefore the accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the accused; that the trial court and the appellate court have appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
8. When this revision petition came up for hearing, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and accordingly, this Court appointed Advocate Babu Joseph Pynadath as amicus curiae and both sides were heard.
9. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court needs any interference by this Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 5 2025:KER:44761 Court, we have to bear in mind the well settled principle that the revisional power of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal and unless the finding of the court which is under challenge 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. (Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 123], Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165]
10. Now let us analyse the evidence on record.
11. The law was set in motion by PW1 by furnishing Ext.P1 first information statement pursuant to which Ext.P6 FIR was registered by PW8. PW2 has testified that he is an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, on the date of incident in between 3 pm - 4 pm while he was travelling in the offending tipper lorry loaded with granite stones driven by the accused and when the said tipper lorry reached the place named Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 6 2025:KER:44761 Madrassapadi it hit victim Leela, who was walking along the side of the road and caused injuries to her. He has further testified that after the accident, the tipper lorry was stopped there; that he and the accused alighted from the lorry. He has also testified that PW3 Divakaran took the injured to the hospital. According to him, at the time of the incident the tipper lorry was proceeding at a high speed.
12. PW3 testified that on 22.8.2012 in between 3.30 pm-4 pm while he was travelling in an autorickshaw, he could see the victim Leela lying injured at the scene of occurrence in front of the tipper lorry. He has also testified that the accused was the driver of the offending tipper lorry.
13. It is not in dispute that the victim Leela who suffered grievous injuries succumbed to the injures on 23.8.2012 while she was undergoing treatment in the hospital. Ext.P4 autopsy report coupled with the evidence of PW6 doctor, who conducted the autopsy examination on the body of Leela would show that victim Leela died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident.
14. The testimony of PW7, the Motor Vehicle Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 7 2025:KER:44761 Inspector and Ext.P5 report would show that there was no mechanical defect to the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL42-B/524.
15. It is in evidence that at the time of accident, PW2 was travelling in the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL42-B/524 and he was in the cabin of the said vehicle. He has categorically testified that the accused was the driver of the said tipper lorry. Ext.P8 good carriage record (GCR) seized by PW9 who was the investigation officer would also reveal that accused was the driver of the offending tipper lorry at the time of the accident. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of PW2 that he witnessed the incident. The evidence on record would show that the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-42/B524 driven by the accused knocked down the victim Leela, who was walking along the mud portion of the road and causing grievous injuries to her and she succumbed to the injuries on the next day ie. on 23.8.2012. Prosecution has also succeeded in establishing that it was the accused who was driving the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-42/B-524 at the time of accident.
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 8 2025:KER:44761
16. The learned amicus curiae submitted that speed alone is not a criteria to determine rashness and negligence. It was contended that apart from the version of PW2 that the offending vehicle was at a high speed, nothing is discernible from the evidence of the prosecution that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
17. Rash driving implies driving with wanton disregard for the safety of others, often accompanied by speedy, overtaking dangerously, ignoring traffic sign etc.
18. The learned Public Prosecutor took the attention of this Court to Ext.P2 scene mahazar and contended that the lorry knocked down the victim who was walking along the mud margin of the road; that the act of knocking down the pedestrian who was walking along the mud portion of the road, one meter away from the tar end of the road would clearly establish that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry.
19. Ext.P2 scene mahazar fortifies the prosecution case that at the time when the tipper lorry hit the victim who was a pedestrian, the victim lady was on the mud portion of the road Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 9 2025:KER:44761 one meter west to the western tar end. The evidence on record would show that the accused drove the tipper lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and knocked down the victim. The maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' squarely applies to the case in hand. The materials on record would show that accused drove the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL42- B/524 through the public road so as to endanger human life and caused the death of victim Leela.
20. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the said offences stands confirmed.
21. Now let us see whether the sentence passed against the accused needs any interference.
22. For the offence under Section 279 IPC accused stands sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 304A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 10 2025:KER:44761 year and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further ordered that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
23. Sri.Babu Joseph Pynadath, the learned amicus curiae pointed out that the accused is a first time offender and therefore, it is a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
24. Rash and negligent driving has become a grave menace in India especially in Kerala. Every year thousands of innocent lives are lost due to careless and reckless driving. Every motor accident leaves behind grieving families. The psychological and mental trauma faced by the victim's families is immeasurable. The increasing frequency of motor vehicle accidents highlights the need for a stricter approach to act as a deterrent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, this Court is of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A IPC can be reduced to six months.
Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2018 11 2025:KER:44761
25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition allowed in part modifying the sentence for the offence under Section 304A IPC.
i) The conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC stands confirmed.
ii) The sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- imposed under Section 279 IPC stands confirmed.
iii) The sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 304A IPC is modified and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab