Kerala High Court
Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
1
2025:KER:44618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1288 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2016 IN Crl.A NO.999
OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2009 IN CC NO.1211 OF 2006
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT /
ACCUSED:
JAYARAJAN
AGED 46 YEARS,S/O RAVUNNY VAIDYAR, PADUSSERY
PRAMBIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM
DIST.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
SRI.K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER
SRI.T.V.SHAJI
SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KORATTY POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
2
2025:KER:44618
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-31
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
3
2025:KER:44618
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
---------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1211/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. He stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A IPC before that court and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The appeal preferred by the accused as Criminal Appeal No.999/2009 before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, was allowed in part wherein the conviction was sustained and the sentence was modified.
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.03.2006 at about 10.00 pm, the accused drove a private bus bearing Registration No.KL-1-S 5337, through the National Highway in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, from South to North and when it reached a place called CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 4 2025:KER:44618 Muringoor Divine Junction, hit a Jeep bearing registration No.KL/11/D/1780, driven by PW2, coming from North to South. All the nine passengers in the Jeep sustained injuries and two among them succumbed to their injuries.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 21 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 documents were marked. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and stated that the accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving. From the side of the accused, a passenger in the bus was examined as DW1. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 5 2025:KER:44618 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304 A IPC, all with a default clause. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.Appeal No.999/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction rendered by the trial court, but modified the sentence. The appellate court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304 A IPC, all with a default clause.
4. Heard Sri.P.M. Abdul Jaleel, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N, the learned CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 6 2025:KER:44618 Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He submitted that the evidence of DW1 was not at all appreciated properly by both the courts and they relied on Ext.P19 scene mahazar, without the same being proved. He also argued that the identification of the accused made by the material witnesses is not believable since, the accident has taken place at 10.00 pm and the witnesses have no pre-acquaintance with the accused. He contended that there is no corroborative piece of evidence to support the oral testimony of the witnesses to show that the bus was driven rashly, negligently and in over speed and has transgressed into the wrong portion when it dashed against the jeep.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 7 2025:KER:44618 supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. She argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6 are credible and cogent and they clearly show that it is the accused, who has driven the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner and in over speed and has dashed against the Jeep, while attempting to overtake another vehicle. She further submitted that, going by Ext.P19 scene mahazar, the accident has taken place 6 metres towards east from the western tar end and since, the road is having width of 10 metres, it can be safely presumed that the bus was on its wrong side. Hence, she prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed.
7. On going through the materials on record, it can be seen that both the trial court and the appellate court has placed heavily reliance upon the evidence of PWs 1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6 to reach a finding of guilt against the accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6, clearly shows CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 8 2025:KER:44618 that they have identified the accused as the person, who was driving the bus at the relevant time. It is also discernable from their evidence that, at the time of the accident, the bus was driven in over speed and carelessly and it had over took a vehicle and dashed against the Jeep. The evidence of PW3 further reveals that at the time when the bus dashed against the Jeep, it was on the wrong side of the road. As found by the trial court and the appellate court, the evidence of these witnesses, even after extensive cross- examination remains credible and cogent and I also do not find any reason to disbelieve them. Similarly, as found by these courts, the evidence of DW1 cannot be believed since, he is a person who is well acquainted with the accused.
8. It is true that both the trial court and the appellate court have relied on the contents of Ext.P19 scene mahazar in order to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses that the bus was on the wrong side of the road. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 9 2025:KER:44618 revision petitioner the mere marking of the mahazar will not constitute proof of its contents. The evidence of PW21 clearly shows that he has not spoken anything about the contents of Ext.P19. But even if it is so, since the evidence of the material eye witnesses are credible and cogent, I am of view that the absence of this corroborative piece of evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case.
9. As stated earlier, it is the prosecution case that, in the accident two among the passengers in the Jeep who sustained injuries, have succumbed to the injuries. Both the trial court and the appellate court had rendered finding that the accused is guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC. The records also shows that in order to prove that these two persons have died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the prosecution has examined PW15 and has marked Exts.P13 &P14 postmortem certificates. PW15 has opined that the cause of death of Ramachandran is due to head injury and the cause of CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 10 2025:KER:44618 death of Byju is due to multiple injuries. But, an appraisal of the evidence of PW15 would show that she has not spoken anything about the injuries sustained by these persons, the cause of injuries, the date / time of death and as to whether these injuries had resulted in their death. At this juncture, I will take note of the fact that the prosecution has also not produced any medical records of these persons to prove these facts. If so, from the evidence of PW15, it cannot be deciphered that Ramachandran and Byju have indeed sustained injuries in the accident or that they have succumbed to those injuries. It is a settled law that mere marking of a postmortem certificate will not constitute proof of its contents. As held by the Apex Court in Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar [(2002) 1 SCC 351], the postmortem report is a document which by itself is not substantive evidence but it is the doctor's statement in court, which has the credibility of a substantive evidence. If so, I find that there is no substantive evidence to prove CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 11 2025:KER:44618 that the death of the Ramachandran and Byju had occurred due to the injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident. As regards the other injured persons, it has come out in the evidence of PWs 11, 16, 17 and 18 coupled with Exts.P4 to P10 and P15 to P18 that PW2 and PW4 have suffered grievous hurt and PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have sustained simple injuries in the accident. If so, I find no error in the conclusion reached by the courts finding the accused guilty under Section 337 and 338 IPC.
10. The upshot of the afore discussions is that, even though the trial court and the appellate court, while appreciating the evidence, has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused under Section 304 A IPC, they have correctly found that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
11. Coming to the question of sentence, considering the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 12 2025:KER:44618 imposed on the revision petitioner / accused under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC are on a higher side and the same can be modified and reduced. I am thus of the view that the revision petitioner / accused can be ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. I am also of the view that he can be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days. I am of the further view that the revision petitioner / accused can also be ordered to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as follows:-
I) The conviction of the revision petitioner / accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC in C.C.No.1211/2006 by the Judicial First Class CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016 13 2025:KER:44618 Magistrate Court, Chalakudy and as confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.999/2009 by the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is upheld.
II) The conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner / accused under Section 304 A IPC by these courts is set aside.
III) The revision petitioner / accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days and to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE bng