Kerala High Court
Ajimon.P.M vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2024
2024:KER:84190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 841 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRL.A NO.164 OF
2010 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.450 OF 2007 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, EATTUMANOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
AJIMON.P.M.
S/O. MATHAI, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANJOOR
VILLAGE, MEMURI KARA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV.SMT.MAYA M.N. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 2 2024:KER:84190
JUDGMENT
The revision petitioner is the accused. The offences alleged
are under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal
Code. Impugning the concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Eattumanoor in C.C.No.450/2007 and
Crl.A.No.164/2010, the accused preferred this Revision Petition.
2. The prosecution allegation against the accused/
revision petitioner is that, on 11.08.2006 at about 9.15 am, the
accused drove a bus bearing registration no.KL 5L 8584 along the
Medical College Hospital-Vaikom Road in a rash and negligent
manner endangering human life and when the bus reached at
Kochanampadi junction, it hit a bicycle riden by CW4, on which the
deceased Vishnu, a 12 year old child, was the pillion rider. The
impact of the accident was so huge that both the rider as well as the
pillion rider were thrown off and the pillion rider landed right in
front of the rear right side tyres and the bus ran over him causing
instantaneous death and fracture to the pillion rider.
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 3 2024:KER:84190
3. Eattumanoor Police registered the case as Crime
no.341/2006. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet
was filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The revision petitioner/accused appeared before
the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. After a full fledged
trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted
him. Learned Magistrate sentenced accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence
punishable under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence
punishable under Section 337 IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced
accused/petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and
to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338
IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304
(A) IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of
simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 279 and 337
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 4 2024:KER:84190
IPC and simple imprisonment for three months for offence
punishable under Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for six
months for offence punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC were also
awarded. The learned Magistrate made it clear that the sentence shall
run concurrently.
5. The Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.164/2010 has
confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed against the
revision petitioner/accused.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the courts below went wrong in convicting the
revision petitioner/accused. There is no evidence to prove the
negligence on the part of the revision petitioner/accused.
7. PWs 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses in this matter.
They categorically stated that, the bus involved in the incident came
to the spot in an excessive speed and the incident occured due to the
over speed and negligence of the bus Driver.
8. PW4, the rider of the bicycle would also say that
the bus came in an excessive speed and the bus was coming by the
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 5 2024:KER:84190
extreme right side of the road.
9. Heard Adv. Sri. S. Ananthakrishnan, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv. Smt. Maya N.N., the
learned Public Prosecutor.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submits that the negligence and the rashness on the part of the
revision petitioner/accused is not proved in this case. The learned
counsel would further submit that the bus was coming from south to
north. The bicycle was coming from east to west through a pocket
road having a slope towards west. The learned counsel further
submits that, infact, the bicycle was coming in a high speed, it
collided with the bus on the back tyres of the bus.
11. The learned counsel would further submit that the
Driver of the bus, the revision petitioner /accused, had no occassion
to see that a cycle was coming from the pocket road in a high speed.
The learned counsel would further submit that the width of the road
is only 4 meters and the width of the bus would be approximately 3
meters. Admittedly, as per Ext.P3, scene mahazar, the incident took
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 6 2024:KER:84190
place on the road margin.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, no
interference is warranted in this matter, since there is concurrent
finding of facts by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
13. Upon a careful consideration of the submissions of the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor,
I am of the view that, no interference is required in this matter with
regard to the conviction imposed by the Courts. I am of the view
that, this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence on record, being
a Revisional Court. In Manimekhala S. v. State of Kerala (2024 (2)
KHC 37) this Court observed thus:
"21. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse, or
the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is
non-consideration of any relevant material or, there is
palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not
justified in setting aside the order, merely because another
view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an
appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional
jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice
in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401
Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the
finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 7 2024:KER:84190
based on no material or where the material facts are wholly
ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in
exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: Sanjaysinh
Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC
123], Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC
631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)]}."
14. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would
submit that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence
imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
15. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor,
I am of the view that the sentence imposed in this case is too harsh
and excessive. Therefore, considering the entire facts, circumstances
and evidence of this case, I am of the view that the sentence imposed
by the Trial Court and Appellate Court can be modified and reduced.
i. The substantive sentence imposed by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court under Sections 279, 337, 338
and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code are hereby
modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising
of the Court.
Crl.R.P.No.841/2012 8 2024:KER:84190
ii. The fine imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed
by the Appellate Court are hereby maintained.
iii. The Trial Court shall execute the sentence in the
modified form.
This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
SLR
