Kerala High Court
Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 20 September, 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
THURSDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/2ND AGRAHAYANA,1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2814 of 2004 (B)
---------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN CRA 148/2003 of ADDL.D.C. & MACT,NORTH PARAVUR
DATED 20-09-2004
JUDGMENT IN CC 860/1999 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA
DATED 21.01.2003
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::
-----------------------------------------
SURESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. DHANAN,
PANACHIKKAL VEEDU, NEAR ADICHILI BUS STOP,,
ADICHILI KARA, MELLOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.M.N.SANJITH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT::
--------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
nkr
K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 2814 of 2004
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
JYOTHINDRANATH, J This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below. The revision petitioner is the accused in CC 860/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Aluva. He was convicted for an offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The sentence was to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of IPC and six months simple imprisonment under Section 279 of IPC. The appeal filed as Criminal Appeal No. 148/2003 on the files of Additional Sessions Court, North Paravoor was also not successful. Hence this Criminal Revision Petition.
2. When this Criminal Revision Petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted before this court that, here is case where the courts below committed illegality and perversity in appreciating the evidence to come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner committed the offences for which he was convicted. It is the submission made before this court that the witnesses may come and lie, but circumstances will not. Ext.P2 will show that the Crl.R.P. No. 2814 of 2004 2 damage sustained on the left side of the lorry. That also on the rear mudguard. This circumstance has to be appreciated on in the light of the evidence of PW1, that the place of contact of the bicycle and the lorry was on the "Palla of Lorry" "palla" means belly area. It can be only considered as the left side of the lorry. If that is so, by no stretch of the imagination it can be said that the driver of the lorry was criminally negligent in driving the vehicle. No criminal negligence was made out . It is also submitted that the accident occurred at a bypass junction area and as per the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that vehicles were moving like a convoy and if that is so, it can be inferred that vehicles were not moving in a high speed, which will belie the evidence that revision petitioner committed criminal negligence in causing the accident.
3. Prosecutor submitted before this court that, two courts already appreciated the evidence. It is also the submission that PW1 is not an ordinary witness, but a police personnel who witnessed the accident from the place of his duty and further he reported the case to the Police Station. He was not a chance witness, but he was present at the place of incident as apart of his official duty, i.e he was deputed therein to control the traffic. He is the person who arranged to take the injured to the hospital and further gave Ext.P1, FI statement. Under such circumstances, when two courts already appreciated this evidence, Crl.R.P. No. 2814 of 2004 3 a reappreciation of evidence, especially in a Criminal Revision Petition is not warranted.
4. The necessary facts for consideration of this Criminal Revision Petition is as follows:-
At Aluva NH road junction, a tanker lorry knocked down a bicyclist , he sustained fatal injuries and scummed to the injuries. The information was furnished to the police by a police constable who was in duty at the place of incident. The crime registered and after investigation, a final report was filed. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and Exts.P1 to P8 marked. After reappreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 304(A) and 279 of IPC, which was confirmed in appeal.
5. The main point is to be considered is whether the trial court as well as the appellate court committed any illegality or perversity in appreciating the evidence, which will warrant the interference of this court. I perused the records in this case. It can be seen that, the first informant is a Police Officer who supported the prosecution case. PW2 and 3 are alleged eye witnesses presented by the prosecution to prove the case but, surely they were declared as hostile. But on perusal of the evidence, PW2 admitted the fact that a tanker lorry knocked down a cyclist and as per the evidence of him is that "2:n g5Ga D_x_Ea gH^A_, hXA_Z5^xX gy^A_W Ix_Aa Ix_ 5_?AaKa. 2xa 3gG^O_W 5Ox_ 5^gx^Ja5a]_Aa Crl.R.P. No. 2814 of 2004 4 U_Ga. ?^CV g\^y_ '?_:na. H"LV %y_O_\o.e'?_:n gVW" g\^y_ N^x_ H_VJ_."
6. PW1, the police constable who gave the first information to the police is categoric that the lorry knocked down the bicyclist. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, as per the AMVI report, which was marked as Ext.P2, will show that the only damage is on the mudguard of the left tyre, on the front side of the tanker lorry. Thus, the case tried to be projected before this court is that the bicycle hit against the lorry. Surely on collision on an area at the back mudguard cannot occur, if the hit is not by the cycle to the lorry. This argument seems to be not correct. When the scene mahazar is perused, it shows that eventhough the front wheel detached it can be seen that the denting is on the back portion of the cycle. It is to be remembered that PW1 is an official, who witnessed the incident, while doing his duty. No animosity or prior acquaintance to the accused was brought out to falsely implicated or to give false information to the police. This F.I. Statement will come under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, being the earliest version, it will have its own evidenciary value to corroborate the substantial oral evidence. Under such circumstances it cannot be held that any illegality or perversity committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence.
The only question to be considered is that of sentence. Here is a case where an accident occurred at the junction area. Admittedly there Crl.R.P. No. 2814 of 2004 5 was heavy traffic. The accident occurred as back as in 1998. Considering all aspect, the sentence can be reduced and modified. The imprisonment awarded under Section 304(A) IPC can be modified and reduced to SI for 3 months. Simple imprisonment for 6 months awarded under Section 279 of IPC is also set aside and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) imposed with default simple imprisonment for 10 days. With the above modification on the sentence side, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE hmh