Kerala High Court
Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/21ST CHAITHRA 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1266 of 2004 ( )
---------------------------------
CRL. A.125/2000 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC),
FAST TRACK-I, MANJERI.
CC.179/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
PERINTHALMANNA.
................
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BALAKRISHNAN,
MELETHIL HOUSE, PENGATTIRI P.O.,
NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K,
SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MELATTUR BY GOVT. PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M. MADHUBEN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
P. D. RAJAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Crl.R.P. No. 1266 of 2004
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2013
JUDGMENT
Revision petitioner was convicted by the trial court U/s. 279, 337 & 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different periods. He was disqualified to drive bus for two years. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal filed was dismissed by the Addl. District District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No.I, Manjeri confirming the conviction passed by the trial court but, modified the sentence. Challenging the said judgments, this criminal revision petition has been preferred.
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.04.1996 at 5.15 p.m, the revision petitioner was driving a bus No. KLL 1413 from Perinthalmanna to Alanallur in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. When the CRRP 1266/2004 2 vehicle reached at Poovakkundu, it went out of the road and capsized to the northern side of the road. As a result, the passengers in the bus sustained serious injuries. Immediately they were removed to hospital. On the basis of information, Melathoor Police registered the crime and after investigation charge was laid in the trial court.
3. When the revision petitioner appeared in the trial court, the particulars of offence read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Hence, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 28 and admitted Exts. P1 to P42 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought our in evidence were denied by the petitioner, when questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court after sifting and weighing the evidence on record, convicted him under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced thereunder. Aggrieved by that, he preferred a criminal appeal in the lower appellate court where the conviction was confirmed. Hence this revision.
4. Adv.Sri. U.K. Devidas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that there CRRP 1266/2004 3 was no rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner at the time of the accident. The revision petitioner drove the vehicle with due care and caution. The road condition was very bad and due to mechanical defect, the vehicle went out of the road and it capsized. There was no identity to the driver of the vehicle. Most of the prosecution witnesses did not support the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and they admitted that condition of the road was very bad. Therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Madhuben strongly opposed the arguments and contended that there was no mechanical defect to the vehicle and the revision petitioner driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. The injured identified the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus and no dispute regarding that aspect. When rash and negligent driving was proved, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is only to be confirmed.
CRRP 1266/2004 4
6. In this context, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the alleged offence against the revision petitioner is proved? In order to attract Section 279 IPC, prosecution has to prove that the revision petitioner had driven the bus on a public way so rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to other persons by such driving. Here, the oral evidence of PW1 shows that on 04.04.1996 at 5.30 p.m., while he was travelling in the offending vehicle and when it reached at Poovankode, the vehicle capsized towards the northern side of the road. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. He identified the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus. PW2 deposed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. PW3 deposed that the driver driven the vehicle without proper care and caution. PW4 deposed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. He sustained serious injuries and he lost his two teeth in the accident.
CRRP 1266/2004 5
7. PW1 identified the driver. Pws. 2,3,4,5,7,8,11 &12 deposed that driver was rash and negligent at the time of accident. PWs. 3, 8, 11, 20 & 21 not identified the driver. But they deposed that the vehicle was rash and negligent at the time of accident. PWs. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 22 turned hostile. On analyzing the evidence, it is clear that few passengers sustained serious injuries in the accident and the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent.
8. The next aspect to be considered is whether the driver of the bus caused any hurt to the passengers in the bus by doing any act so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life. PW4 deposed that he sustained serious injuries and lost two teeth in the accident. Exts. P7 to P42 are the wound certificates issued by PW28. According to PW28, the injured persons, PW1 to PW22, sustained grievous injuries in the accident. PW2 lost two teeth, which caused a grievous injuries to him. There was no mechanical defect to the vehicle. PW23 deposed that the brake condition was intact and due to the accident tie rod CRRP 1266/2004 6 broken.
9. Therefore, I am of the opinion that due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner, several passengers in the bus sustained hurt and grievous hurt and the accident was caused not due to any mechanical defect. The revision petitioner has no complaint against the investigating officer or the police officers who registered the crime and completed the investigation. The trial court on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and as a result of the accident, several persons sustained injuries. Therefore, the conviction passed by the courts below is to be confirmed.
10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the accident was occurred 17 years back i.e., on 4.4.1996. The revision petitioner is now aged 46 years and leading a good family life with his wife and children. His daughters are studying and if he is sent to jail, it will affect their family life also. Now he is working in a CRRP 1266/2004 7 brick company as a labourer and prays for leniency in sentence.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on a decision in State of Karnataka V. Peter Prank, 2000 KHC 2611, and prayed leniency in the sentence. I am of the view that there is some force in the submission. Apex court in Madanlal Ramchandra Daga V. Muralidhar Kagniram Daga and another, AIR 1968 SC 1267, held that if the court thinks that leniency can be shown on the facts of the case, it may impose a lighter sentence. Therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to get leniency in the sentence.
12. In the result, the conviction imposed on the revision petitioner under section 279, 337, 338 IPC is confirmed. The revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days under section 279 IPC, to pay a fin of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under CRRP 1266/2004 8 section 337 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days under section 338 IPC. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within 30 days from today.
The revision petition is allowed in part.
P. D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
nkm.
CRRP 1266/2004 9
Crl.M.P. No. 5584/2004 in Crl.R.P. No. 1266/2004 Dismissed.
11-4--2013 Sd/-P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge.