Kerala High Court
M.Deepak vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024
Crl. R.P 124/2016
1
2024:KER:83171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 124 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.01.2016 IN CRA NO.73 OF
2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-III, MANJERI ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2013 IN CC NO.211 OF 2010 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II,PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
M.DEEPAK
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O RAMANKUTTY,
MELEPPATTUTHODI HOUSE,
CHERPULASSERY, PANNIAMKURISSY,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.MAYA.M.N.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. R.P 124/2016
2
2024:KER:83171
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
This Criminal revision petition has been preferred by the appellant in
Crl.A.No.73/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri
against the judgment dated 1.1.2016, confirming the judgment of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna convicting him under Sections 279
and 304A IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 8.11.2008 at 4 p.m., the accused
being the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 09 C
Temp.9977, rode the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
human life along the Perimnthalmanna-Pattambi public road and knocked
down the deceased Subramanian, who was walking along the side of the said
road, resulting in causing serious head injuries and thereafter Subramanian
succumbed to the injuries.
3. The evidence in the case consist of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to
11 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P9. No evidence was adduced
by the accused. After evaluating the evidence on record, the learned
Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and
2024:KER:83171
304A IPC, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge.
4. Now, the point that arise for consideration is the following:
Whether the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
Magistrate calls for any interference, in the light of the
grounds raised in this revision petition?
5. Heard Sri. Johnson Varikkappilly, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the revision petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public
Prosecutor .
6. The point:- The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1
and 2 to prove the incident. PW1 would swear that on 8.11.2008 at about 4
p.m., while he was sitting inside his auto-rickshaw, which was parked by the
side of the Mala road, he saw the incident, in which a motorcycle driven by
the accused hit down the deceased Subrananian. Immediately, Subramanian
was taken to nearby Moulana Hospital. According to him, in the incident, the
accused also sustained injuries. He identified the accused as the person who
was riding the motor cycle at the time of the incident.
7. PW2 deposed that on 8.11.2008 at 4 p.m., he was standing near to
2024:KER:83171
PW1. He saw the incident. According to him, the motor cycle driven by the
accused hit down the deceased Subramanian. According to PW2, the motor
cycle was in a high speed and the rider lost his control and that is the reason
for the incident. He also identified the accused as the rider of the motor
cycle. PW11 was the investigating officer, who had conducted the
investigation of the case and filed the final report.
8. According to PW1, he was sitting in the auto-rickshaw at the Mala
road, at the time of the incident. According to PW2, he was also standing
near PW1 at the time of the incident. During the cross examination, PW11
deposed that a person standing at Mala road could not see the incident. Even
according to PW1, Mala road situates at about 75 metres from the place of
incident. Though PW2 claimed that at the time of the incident, he was
standing near PW1, it is an omission. According to PW11, as per the
statement given to him, PW2 was standing at Pulinkavu stop, which is
admittedly 100 metres away from the place of occurrence. During the cross
examination, PWs 1 and 2, at one stage deposed that when they reached the
spot, both the accused and the victim were lying on the floor. In the light of
the evidence of PW11 that a person standing at Mala road could not see the
2024:KER:83171
incident and during cross examination, PWs1 and 2 deposed that when they
reached the scene of occurrence, the accused as well as the deceased were
lying on the floor, I am constrained to hold that PWs 1 and 2 have not
actually witnessed the incident. There is no other evidence to prove the
charge against the revision petitioner. In the light of the above discussions, it
can be seen that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the charge
against the revision petitioner, beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered
accordingly.
In the result, this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned
judgment of learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Magistrate, is set aside. The revision petitioner is found
not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 386 (b)(i) Cr.P.C. He is set at
liberty, cancelling his bail bond.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
