Kerala High Court
Dilip Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2570 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2012 IN Crl.A NO.326 OF 2010
OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.06.2010 IN CC NO.635 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, PALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
DILIP KUMAR
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PANIYANCHERIYIL HOUSE,
CHENGARAKAVALA BHAGOM, CHENGARA KARA,
PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2570 OF 2012 -2-
2025:KER:10385
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by
the accused impugning the judgment of Sessions Court,
Kottayam in Crl.Appeal.No. 326 of 2010. The offences alleged
against the revision petitioner are under Sections 304A, 279,
337 and 338 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on
01.09.2006 at about 1.30 p.m. while the accused was driving
a tempo van bearing Registration No.KL-7/AL-3964 in a rash
and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and
personal safety of others and when it reached at
Thamarkandum, Veliyannoor Village, the tempo van hit one
Akhil Saji, aged 9 years. The said Akhil Saji sustained
grievious injuries in the accident and later succumbed to
death and thereby the accused committed the aforementioned
offences.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 13 were
examined and Exts.P1 to 11 were marked. After the closure
of the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate examined
the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2025:KER:10385
4. After hearing both sides, the learned
Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Sessions
Court, Kottayam and preferred Crl.Appeal No.326 of 2010.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
dismissed the appeal.
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this criminal
revision petition.
8. Adv.T.K.Vipindas, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge is legally sustainable and no interference of
this Court is warranted.
9. Per contra, Adv.P.P.Thajudeen, learned
counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. Both the trial
court and the appellate court had failed to note the various
illegalities, irregularities and improprieties in the prosecution
case.
10. The learned counsel submitted that the
2025:KER:10385
prosecution has failed to allege and prove that the
petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner. No witnesses spoke about the rashness and the
negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Instead, the witnesses
deposed that the vehicle was driven in an over speed. The
learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has
failed to allege and prove that, death of the victim has direct
nexus with the rash and negligent driving of the revision
petitioner.
11. It is further submitted that, both the trial
court and the appellate court had failed to appreciate the
scene mahazar in its correct perspective.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner is that, two views are possible in this case
one pointing out the guilt of the accused and the other
showing the innocence of the accused. According to the
counsel for the revision petitioner, the child crossed the road
abruptly seeing his mother on the opposite side of the road.
It is further submitted that, no witnesses spoke about the
rashness of the revision petitioner. Instead, the witnesses
would say that the tempo van was driven in an over-speed. It
2025:KER:10385
is his case that, mere driving of a vehicle in an over-speed by
itself would not amount to rashness and thereby the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the revision
petitioner.
13. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court
mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4. PW4 is the
mother of the victim and she supported the prosecution case.
PWs 2 and 3 are the co-passengers in the bus from which the
child alighted. PWs 2 and 3 would say that, they heard the
sound of the accident and did not actually witness the
accident.
14. Both the trial court and appellate court have
vitiated the evidence. I do not want to re-appreciate the
evidence.
15. Even though the learned counsel for the
petitioner urged several grounds, I do not find much force in
the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner further submitted that the sentence
imposed in this matter is too harsh and excessive and
interference is warranted in the sentence.
2025:KER:10385
Considering the nature, gravity of the offence and the
facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the
substantive sentence imposed by the court in this matter
under the various sections are to be modified and reduced to
imprisonment till rising of the court. No fine is imposed by
the lower court. Since the substantive sentence is reduced till
the rising of the court, I am of the view that, compensation
can be ordered in this matter. An amount of Rs.25,000/- to be
paid to PW4, the mother of the victim.
In the result,
(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the
trial court is modified and reduced to
imprisonment till rising of the court.
(iii) The revision petitioner is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees
Twenty five thousand only] to PW4, the
mother of the victim.
(iv) The revision petitioner shall surrender
before the trial court within 45 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The trial court shall execute the sentence in
the modified form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
vv
