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

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

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

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

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

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.