[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nazeer vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2025
2025:KER:92563
Crl.R.P.No.2145/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2145 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.312 OF 2009 OF
SPECIAL C IDAMALAYAR INVN & 5 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM/ II ADDITIONAL MACT, EKM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.157 OF 2001 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
NAZEER
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.PAREEDPILLAI, PARIYATHUVEETTIL, MANAKKAPPADIBHAGOM,
THAYIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
SRI.M.I.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE C.I.OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE
STATION, KOCHI CITY (CR. 167/97), REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2025:KER:92563
Crl.R.P.No.2145/2012
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92563
Crl.R.P.No.2145/2012
3
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ernakulam, and the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam, convicting and
sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections
279,337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are under challenge
in this revision petition filed by the accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution is that on 26.01.1997, at about 7.00 am, the
petitioner drove a Stage Carriage bus in a rash and negligent manner, likely
to endanger human life, through a public road, and hit two motor cycles in
which the deceased and PW1 to PW3 were travelling in the opposite
direction, causing serious injuries to all of them which eventually resulted in
the death of the victim. There is the further allegation that the petitioner
neither informed the matter to the Police and nor gave first aid to the injured.
3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses as
PW1 to PW23 and marked 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. From the part of
the accused, two Defence Witnesses were marked as DW1 and DW2. One
contradiction was marked as Ext.D1.
4. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence and hearing both
sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the
2025:KER:92563
commission of the offences alleged against him. He was accordingly
sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under
Section 279 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under
Section 337 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence
under Section 338 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC, with a default clause of
Simple Imprisonment for one month for non-payment of fine. No separate
sentence was awarded for the offences under Sections 134(a) and 134(b)
r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The substantial sentence of
Imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently, and set off was allowed.
5. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a
reappraisal of the entire evidence, and found that there was absolutely no
reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly,
the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by
the Trial Court. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the
courts below, that the petitioner is here with this revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
7. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution,
PW1 to PW8, PW10 and PW13 categorically stated before the Trial Court
2025:KER:92563
about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner leading to the accident
involved in this case. Among the above witnesses, PW1 was the person, who
was driving the Motor Bike in which the deceased was travelling as a pillion
rider. PW2 and PW3 are the riders of the other Motor Bike, upon which the
vehicle driven by the petitioner had hit. In addition to the statement of the
above witnesses, PW4 to PW6, who were the passengers of the aforesaid bus
driven by the petitioner, deposed before the court in unequivocal terms, that
the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at the
time when the accident occurred. PW4 even stated before the Trial Court that
the petitioner had an altercation with one of the travellers, and that he
pushed down that passenger from the bus, and thereafter drove the bus at a
very high speed, as a result of which her head had hit on the iron bar of the
seat. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated
the evidence in the above regard, pointing to rash and negligent driving on
the part of the petitioner, which resulted in the accident.
8. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent
findings of facts by the courts below with regard to the reason for the
accident. Needless to say, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences
alleged against him, is not liable to be interfered with in this revision.
2025:KER:92563
9. While arguing on the sentence awarded by the courts below, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now aged
65 years, and is suffering from various ailments, which has virtually disabled
him. A certificate issued from a private hospital is placed before me to show
that the fourth right toe of the petitioner has been amputated, and that he is
still under treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the elapse of a period of more than 28 years from the date of accident
may also be taken into account, while deciding on the question of sentence.
10. Having regard to the above aspect relating to the age of the
petitioner, and also the various ailments for which he is said to be undergoing
treatment, I am of the view that the prison term awarded to him has to be
reduced to Simple Imprisonment for one month in total. However, the
petitioner will have to pay compensation to PW1 to PW3, who sustained
injuries in the accident, which happened due to his rash and negligent drive.
Therefore, the sentence is liable to be modified by imposing compensation
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. as well.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part as follows:
1)The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner
for the commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
2025:KER:92563
IPC and under Sections 134 (a) and 134(b) r/w Section 187 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, are hereby confirmed.
2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below upon the
petitioner, he is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one month
under Section 304A IPC with a further direction to pay compensation
of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C.
3) No separate sentences are awarded for the other offences found
against the petitioner.
4) In the event of non-payment of compensation as directed above, the
petitioners will undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further term of
three months. Out of the aforesaid compensation amount of
Rs.15,000/-, if remitted by the petitioner, the Trial court shall pass
appropriate orders for disbursing Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) each to PW1 to PW3.
5) The petitioner will be entitled to set off for the period of custody, which
he had already undergone from 29.01.1997 to 10.02.1997.
6) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of
30 days from today to undergo the sentence imposed by this order,
and to make payment of compensation as directed above.
2025:KER:92563
The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order, along with the case
records, to the Trial Court forthwith.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
