Kerala High Court
Sivadasan vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006
1
2025:KER:59576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CRL.A NO.222 OF 2001 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS NORTH PARAVUR ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.489 OF 1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SIVADASAN, S/O.KUNJU,
THACHANKOTTIL VEETTIL,
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006
2
2025:KER:59576
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.489 of 1995 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.12.1994 at 07.45 a.m. the petitioner drove the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-10/997, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, in an excessive speed through Angamaly - Aluva N.H. road from south to north and hit the jeep bearing Registration No.KL-5/3096. PWs 1 to 8, who were travelling in the jeep, sustained serious injuries and three others died on the spot.
4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 20 were examined and CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 3 2025:KER:59576 Exts.P1 to P18 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, three months for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, one year for the offence under Section 338 and two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur (for short, 'appellate court') in Crl.A.No.222 of 2001. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.
5. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 4 2025:KER:59576
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned conviction and sentence mainly on two grounds:-
(1) The identity of the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle has not been properly proved. (2) There is no legal evidence to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner.
7. PWs 1 to 8 were cited as occurrence witnesses. They were travelling in the jeep involved in the incident. However, PWs 1 to 3 alone supported the prosecution. PWs 4 to 8 turned hostile. PWs 1 to 3 gave evidence that while the jeep in which they were travelling reached at Kariyad Junction, Aluva- Angamaly road, the lorry which was driven by the petitioner came from opposite side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner overtook an autorickshaw and hit against the jeep. They as well as others travelling in the jeep sustained serious injuries and three other persons died on the spot. All the three occurrence witnesses identified the petitioner as the person who drove the lorry. PWs 1 and 2 deposed that the lorry came at high speed. PW3 specifically deposed that the petitioner drove the CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 5 2025:KER:59576 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 deposed that he sat in the front side of the jeep and he could clearly see the lorry driver. PWs 3 and 4 stated that immediately after the incident, the petitioner abandoned the lorry and escaped in a KSRTC bus. Even though PWs 1 to 3 were cross examined at length, nothing tangible could be extracted from their testimony to discredit the prosecution version. PW19 is the investigating officer. The investigating officer deposed that after the arrest, the petitioner was shown to the witnesses. PW3 deposed that the petitioner was brought to the hospital. Therefore, there was previous identification as well. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no proper identification cannot be accepted at all.
8. As stated already, PWs 1 and 2 deposed that the lorry came at high speed. PW3 stated that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The jeep was coming from north to south. The accident occurred at a distance of 50 meters west from the eastern tar end of the road. The lorry was CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 6 2025:KER:59576 coming from south to north. The tar road is having a width of 6.99 meters. This itself is sufficient to show that the lorry had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and hit on the jeep. Therefore, the principle of res ipsa loquitur would be applied.
9. For the reason stated above, I am satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now aged 60 years and he has been facing the ordeal of trial for the last more than 30 years. In the above circumstances, the substantive sentence may be reduced. I find some force in the said argument. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has been facing the ordeal of trial for the last more than 30 years, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 7 2025:KER:59576 the appellate court for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC can be modified as follows:-
(i) The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences under Sections 304A and 338 of IPC.
(ii) The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
(iii) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part as above.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 8 2025:KER:59576 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 192 OF 2006 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26.09.2005.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS DATED 20.09.2003, 21.03.2024, 16.09.2004 AND 25.03.2005.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 08.07.2004.