Kerala High Court
Rafeeq vs State Of Kerala Rep. By on 9 August, 2012
Author: P.S. Gopinathan
Bench: P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 186 of 2001 ( )
-------------------------------
CRA.18/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR
SC.66/1997 of PRINCIPAL ASST. SSSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAFEEQ, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED,
THOPPIL VEEDU, VEDIMARA,
NORTH PARAVUR.
BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER
RESPONDEDNT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY G.P.SMT. S. HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
........................................
CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001
...............................................
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2012
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.66/1997 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Paravur. He was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Aluva in Crime No.168/1996 alleging offences under Section 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with a plea that at 12 noon on 18.3.1996 Pws 1 to 3, who were the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Inspector and Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector respectively along with another Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector were inspecting passing vehicles at Manakkapady along Aluva-North Paravur route. The revision petitioner, as a driver of a trucker bearing Registration No.KL8/D 7151, was operating parallel service along Aluva- North Paravur route. At about 12 O'Clock when the trucker driven by the revision petitioner reached the spot, PW3, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was standing along the left side of the road, showed signal to stop the vehicle. CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 2: The revision petitioner did not heed to the signal. He slowed and drove the vehicle to the road side, knocked down PW3 and attempted to drive ahead. Pws 1 and 2, who were standing along the right side of the road, immediately showed signal to stop the vehicle. Then the vehicle was driven to the right side of the road and knocked down Pw1. According to the prosecution, since the revision petitioner was operating parallel service, he was got angry by the intervention of the inspecting officials and therefore, he knocked down Pws 1 and 3 in attempt to commit murder and to deter them from discharging official duties.
Pws 1 and 3 were immediately rushed to the hospital. Intimation was conveyed to the police. On the basis of the first information statement given by PW1, a case was registered for offences under Section 307 and 353 IPC. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aluva for the above said ofence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded as CP.1/1997. On finding that the offence under section 307 IPC is triable by a Court of Sessions, the case CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 3: was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur. From there it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge.
The Assistant Sessions Judge issued process responding to which the revision petitioner entered appearance. Either side was heard and charge for the above said offence was framed. When read over and explained, the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner took a plea of total innocence. Though he was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 307 IPC. For offence under Section 353 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rs.1,500/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to Pw1 in the event of realisation of CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 4: the fine amount. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.18/1999 before the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 12.1.2001 arrived at a finding that no offence under Section 307 IPC was established, but only offences under Section 324 and 353 were established. Accordingly the conviction for offence under Section 307 was converted to one under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The conviction and sentence for offence under Section 353 IPC was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the Government Pleader. Perused the judgments of the courts below and the evidence.
Pws 1 to 3 had harmoniously given evidence in support of the prosecution case. Another Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who was also along with Pws 1 to 3 was not CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 5: examined. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 would show that the revision petitioner was driving trucker bearing Registration No.KL 8/D-755 from Aluva to North Paravur in the east-west direction. He was operating parallel service. PW3 who was standing along the southern side of the road showed signal to stop the trucker. Then the vehicle was slowed down, drove against PW3 and hit him down. Seeing that, Pws 1 and 2, who were standing along the northern side of the road, showed signal to stop the vehicle. Then the vehicle was driven against them and PW1 was also hit down. It is not in dispute that Pws 1 to 3 were in discharge of their official duties. Of course it is revealed out in evidence that PW1 was in civil dress, whereas Pws 2 and 3 were in uniform. Though PW1 was not in uniform, he was also discharging the official duties. Exts.P8 and P9 wound certificates issued by PW7 would show that Pws1 and 3 had sustained simple injuries. Simple injuries sustained by them were not disputed. The manner in which they were knocked down by the revision petitioner with the trucker would show that there was attempt to deter Pws 1 to 3 from discharging their official duties. It appears that Pws 1 CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 6: and 3 had a narrow escape. I find no reason to diverge with the appellate court who had on meticulous reappraisal of the evidence found that offences under Sections 324 and 353 IPC are established. Therefore, I find that conviction under challenge is unassailable.
Regarding sentence, the learned counsel, Sri. T.O. Xavier persuasively requested for confining the sentence to one of fine. Having due regard to the nature of the offence, I find that confining sentence to a fine would amount to a flee-bite sentence for which I am not inclined. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that sentence awarded by the appellate court is a little bit excessive and that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 324 IPC with the fine as imposed by the appellate court and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for offence under section 353 IPC would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 7: reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months respectively for offence under Section 324 and 353 IPC. The fine imposed by the trial court with the default sentence for offence under Section 324 IPC is sustained. The order to pay compensation to PW1 is also sustained. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court which shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE cl CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 : 8: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
....................................... CRL.R.P.NO.186 OF 2001 ............................................... 9th day of August, 2012 O R D E R