Kerala High Court
Stephen John @ Sani vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
2025:KER:11055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/21ST MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO.2124 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.01.2012 IN Crl.A
NO.54 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALA ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2008 IN CC NO.411 OF 2004 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
STEPHEN JOHN @ SANI,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.JOHNY,KADAICKAL VEEDU,PARATHODU BHAGOM,
UZHAVOOR KARA & VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE
DR.P.L.JOHN
SRI.K.C.THOMAS PALA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM
Smt.Maya M.N., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11055
Crl.R.P No.2124 of 2013
2
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by
the accused impugning the judgment of the Additional
Sessions Court, Pala in Crl.Appeal.No.54/2009. The offences
alleged against the revision petitioner are under Sections 279,
337 and 304A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1) r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on
18.04.2004 at about 4 p.m, the revision petitioner drove an
autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life resulting in the death of two passengers
and causing injury to another passenger. The accused was
also injured in the accident.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to PW19 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. Thereafter, the
accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The trial court after a full fledged trial,
convicted and sentenced the accused in the following manner:
"The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable under Section 279 IPC and he is further
2025:KER:11055
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months under section 337 IPC. At the same
time, the accused is further sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.6,000/- under section 304A IPC. In default of
payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three months more. If the fine
amount is realized, an amount of Rs.2500/- each
will be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Thomas
and Sonia by way of compensation under section
357(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of
the MV Act."
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.54/2009
before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Pala. As per
judgment dated 17.01.2012, the Additional Sessions Judge
dismissed the appeal.
5. Impugning the judgment of the Additional
Sessions Court, Pala, the accused preferred this revision
petition.
6. Adv.Maya M.N, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge is legally sustainable and no interference of this Court is
warranted.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the revision
2025:KER:11055
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.
8. The main contention of the revision petitioner is
that the accident occurred due to the failure of the break
system and there was leakage of break oil from the vehicle.
Since he lost the control of the vehicle in the steep down
portion of the road, in order to avoid further harm, he dashed
it against the compound wall. That was the only way out for
the revision petitioner/accused to save the life of himself and
others.
9. The R.T.O, PW17 gave evidence to the fact that,
there was no failure of break system and the break system
was intact. During cross examination, PW17 would say that,
he has not drove the vehicle since it was not in a running
condition.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would further submit that, even though the R.T.O is an expert,
how he can ascertain the condition of the break system
2025:KER:11055
without driving the vehicle?. Admittedly, the vehicle was
inspected by him on the fourth day of the alleged occurrence.
The trial court and the appellate court mainly relied on the
evidence of PWs.3 and 2. PW3 is an eye witness to the alleged
occurrence. PW2 was a passenger in an auto rickshaw, who
sustained injuries in the accident.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit
that, it has come out in evidence that the petitioner drove the
vehicle in a terrific speed where the road was very steep. It is
further submitted that, PW1 has noticed the presence of break
oil at the place of occurrence.
12. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court
appreciated the evidence correctly and arrived at proper
conclusion with regard to the conviction.
13. I do not find anything to disagree with the
conclusion of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with
regard to the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused.
14. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
would further submit that the sentence imposed in this matter
is too harsh and excessive.
2025:KER:11055
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that the substantial sentence can be
reduced till rising of the Court. The fine imposed and the
default sentence can be maintained. The revision petitioner
shall surrender before the Trial Court within 45 days from the
date of this order to receive the sentence.
In the result,
(a) The Criminal Revision Petition
is allowed in part.
(b) The substantive sentence
imposed in this matter is modified and reduced
to imprisonment till rising of the court.
(c) The fine imposed and the
default sentence are maintained.
(d) The revision petitioner shall
surrender before the trial court within 45 days
from the date of this order to receive the
sentence.
(e) The court below shall execute
the order in the modified manner.
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Cak
