Kerala High Court
Huzain vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:19302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.98 OF 2017 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.623/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
HUZAIN, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O BADARUDEEN, THEKKEVILAYIL HOUSE,
PUNNAKKULAM MURI, ADINAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY
BY ADV K.SHAJ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,682031
BY SMT.MAYA M N-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.2.2025, THE COURT ON 06.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:19302
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1148 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th March 2025
ORDER
In this revision, the revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Prosecution case is that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm. the accused, who was not holding a driving license, drove the car bearing registration No.KL04/R-1055 in a rash and negligent manner through Ayiramthengu Public Road, so as to endanger human life and rammed into the grocery shop of PW6 and caused grievous injuries to PW2 who was shopping in the said shop. Pursuant to Ext.P2 FI statement laid by PW2, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 134(a) and (b), 3(1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:19302 accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. From the judgment of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.98/2017 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the appellate court dismissed the said appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence from which this revision has been filed.
4. It is a well settled principle that ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned 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.
5. Now let us have a look at the prosecution evidence so as to find out whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court.
6. PW2, Jackson is the defacto complainant and the injured. He testified that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm. when he along with PW3 and PW4 had reached at the grocery shop of CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:19302 PW6 Balan situated near to the Ayiramthengu fishing harbour for purchasing provisions, the car driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner crashed into the said shop and hit him causing grievous injuries on his right leg. He was taken to the hospital and undergone treatment and his right leg, above the knee, had to be amputated. Ext.P2 is the first information statement given by him.
7. PW3 and PW4 have testified that they have witnessed the incident; that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm, while PW2 was purchasing goods from the grocery shop of PW6 Balan, a Maruti Alto Car driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner rammed into the said shop and hit PW2 causing grievous injuries to him. According to PW3 and PW4, by seeing the uncontrollable way in which the car was coming, though they could move away, PW2 could not do so; that PW2 was sandwiched between the wall and the car and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg; that PW2 was taken to the hospital. Both PW3 and PW4 have further testified that the right leg of PW2 had to be amputated due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
8. PW6, Balan, who is the owner of the shop, has also testified in tune with the version of PWs 2 to 4. He, too, testified CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:19302 that the Maruti Car bearing registration No.KL-04/R 1055 crashed into his shop and caused serious injuries to PW2 Jackson, who was shopping there at that time. He has also testified that in the accident, the coin box and the glass box of his shop sustained damages. He, too, testified that the accident occurred due to the over speed, rashness and negligence of the accused.
9. Ext.P6 wound certificate and Ext.P7 discharge summary coupled with the version of doctors who were examined as PW8 to PW10 would show that due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the right leg of PW2 had to be amputated. The medical records and the evidence tendered by the doctors corroborate the version of PWs2 to 4 that on 9.2.2010 PW2 sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident and his right leg had to be amputated due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Ext.P1 scene mahazar prepared by the investigating officer adds credence to the prosecution case that the Car bearing registration No.KL-04/R-1055 rammed into the shop of PW6. Ext.P1 scene mahazar and Ext.P10 vehicle mahazar adds credence to the prosecution case that it was the rash and negligent driving of the accused, which resulted in the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:19302 accident.
10. There is ample evidence to show that the rash and negligent driving of the accused caused the accident. The maxim 'res ipsa loquitur'' squarely applies to the case on hand. The prosecution has got a specific case that the accused had no driving license at the time of accident. Accused has no case that he was holding any driving licence at the time of accident. Thus, it also stands established that the accused had no driving licence. Ext.P5 report coupled with the evidence tendered by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the Maruti Car involved in the accident would show that there was no mechanical defects to the said vehicle and its break system was intact. It is in evidence that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm. the accused who had no driving license, drove the car bearing registration No.KL04/R-1055 through Ayiramthengu Public Road in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and rammed into the grocery shop of PW6 and caused grievous injuries to PW2 who was shopping there. Thus, the finding of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge that the accused is guilty under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a finding based CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:19302 on proper analysis of evidence and this Court finds no reason to unsettle the said finding. Thus, the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act stands confirmed.
11. The remaining aspect for consideration is whether the sentence imposed against the accused needs any interference by this Court.
12. The sentence passed by the trial court as confirmed in appeal, reads as follows:
"The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/s 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I for one month, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/s 338 IPC, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I for two months, and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence u/s 3(1) r/w 181 of M.V Act. Set off is allowed. The sentences shall run concurrently."
13. The learned counsel for the accused pleaded leniency in the matter of sentence and submitted that accused is the breadwinner of the family and, therefore the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC may be reduced. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that accused is ready to pay compensation if the subsisting sentence of imprisonment is reduced.
14. Upon hearing both sides, this Court is of the opinion CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 8 2025:KER:19302 that while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, the sentence against the accused can be modified by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC to three months each and awarding compensation to the victim under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part as follows:
a) Conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act is confirmed.
b) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
c) For the offence under Section 338 IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of ₹75,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
d) The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/- for the offence under Section 3(1) CRL.REV.PET NO. 1148 OF 2018 9 2025:KER:19302 r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.
e) Substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC shall run concurrently.
f) Accused is granted one month's time to pay the compensation.
g) If the compensation is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW2.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence against the accused as modified by this Court.
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab