Kerala High Court
Aboobacker Sidhique.M.V vs The Station House Officer on 13 September, 2024
Crl.R.P.No.1163 of 2018 1
2024:KER:70321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1163 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.190 OF 2013 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT IN CC NO.665 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -II, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE.M.V
S/O. MUHAMMED M.M., M.V. HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY.
BY ADVS.
T.G.RAJENDRAN
T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 010
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.08.2024, THE COURT ON 13.9.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1163 of 2018 2
2024:KER:70321
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1163 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Accused in C.C.No.665/2010 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court II, Kannur has filed this revision
petition assailing the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court for
the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC).
2. Prosecution case is that on 1.6.2010 at around 12.30
pm. the car bearing registration No.KL47/A-5665 driven by the
accused in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life, hit PW1 who was standing at the side of the road near
Pappinissery Bus Stop and caused grievous injuries to him.
Accused thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections
2024:KER:70321
279 and 338 of IPC.
3. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 8 were examined. Exts.P1
to P7 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced.
4. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and
he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 338
IPC.
5. The Crl.A.No.190/2013 filed by the accused was
dismissed by the Sessions Court confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the trial court. Assailing the said judgment,
this revision petition has been filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The prosecution case is that on 1.6.2010 at around
12.30 pm while PW1 was standing at the side of the road near
Pappinissery Bus Stop waiting for a bus, a Car bearing registration
No.KL47/A-5665 driven by the accused knocked down PW1 and
2024:KER:70321
caused grievous injuries to PW1. According to the prosecution,
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
accused.
8. The evidence on record would reveal that accused was
the driver of the car bearing registration No.KL-47/A 5665 at the
time of the accident. Ext.P3 accident cum wound certificate
coupled with the evidence of PW4 doctor would reveal that in the
accident PW1 sustained fracture on the left zygomatic arch. Thus,
its stands established that in the accident PW1 sustained grievous
injuries. The trial court after evaluating the oral and documentary
evidence, found that accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused. The said finding was affirmed by
the learned Sessions Court also. There are no reasons to differ
from the concurrent finding of the learned Magistrate and the
learned Sessions Judge. In the said circumstances, this Court
finds that the concurrent finding of the trial court and the appellate
court that the accused committed the offences under Sections 279
and 338 IPC do not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the
2024:KER:70321
revision petitioner pleaded for leniency on the ground that the
accused is the breadwinner of his family and if he is sent to prison,
irreparable hardship would be caused to his family. Further, it was
contended that 14 years have elapsed from the date of the alleged
incident and the accused was on bail for all these years and
therefore, sending him to prison at this stage may cause untold
hardship to him.
10. Admittedly, the accident in this case occurred in the year
2010 i.e. 14 years ago. Accused was on bail for all these years.
11. In Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police [2021 (17) SCC
799] the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for substitution of sentence
for the conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC to fine only
taking into account the fact that the accident had happened over
26 years ago and the accused was on bail throughout the trial.
12. Regard being had to the fact that 14 years have
elapsed from the date of accident, this Court is inclined to
substitute the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 279 and
338 IPC into fine. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in
part as follows modifying the sentence alone:
2024:KER:70321
(a) The conviction of the accused for the offences under
Sections 279 and 338 IPC is hereby confirmed.
(b) Accused shall pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the
offence under Section 279 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 15 days.
(c) Accused shall pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the
offence under Section 338 of IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for two months.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
