Kerala High Court
Mahesh V vs State Of Kerala-Station House Officer on 21 February, 2025
2025:KER:15276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1073 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.81 OF 2014 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT IN CC NO.461 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MAHESH V.,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANAN, KOKKADAN HOUSE,
PAVANORE MOTTA, KUTTIATTOOR,
IRIKKU, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
P.U. SHAILAJAN
P. RAJAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA-STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682035
ADVOCATE P.M.SHEMEER-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 5.2.2025, THE COURT ON 21.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl,R.P.No.1073 of 2018
2
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1073 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st February, 2025
ORDER
In this revision, the revision petitioner assails the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2. Heard both sides.
3. Prosecution case is that on 22.03.2010 at about 12.15
pm. the accused drove a bus bearing Registration No.KL-13-
K/9900 through the Public road near Stadium Complex, Kannur
in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and
knocked down a scooterist named Vishnu Namboodiri, causing
fatal injuries to him. The victim succumbed to the injuries on the
same day. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and
Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 46(1)(a) r/w Section
177 of Motor Vehicles Act.
4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A
IPC and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences.
Accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
192 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 46(1) (a) r/w Section 177 of
Motor Vehicles Act. Challenging the conviction and sentence
though the accused preferred Crl.A.No.81/2014 before the
Sessions Court, Thalassery, the said appeal was dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction
and sentence, accused has preferred this revision challenging its
legality, propriety and validity.
6. The point for consideration in this revision is whether
the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offences
under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC needs any interference by
this Court.
7. It is a well settled position of law that the scope under
the revision against the concurrent finding of fact is very much
limited. Ordinarily, revisional court will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact unless the finding of the court whose
decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or
untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable
or where decision is based on no material or where the material
facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
8. The evidence on record would show that on
22.03.2010 at about 12.15 p.m the bus bearing Registration No.
KL-13-K/9900 hit the Scooter bearing Registration No.KL-7-
M/6583 ridden by the victim at the road mentioned in Ext.P3
scene mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer.
9. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident, the
rider of the scooter Vishnu Namboodiri namely the father of PW1
died. Ext.P2 is the inquest report of the victim. Ext.P5 is the
wound certificate. Ext.P6 is the postmortem report. Exts.P2, P5
and P6 coupled with the evidence of PW11 doctor who conducted
the postmortem of the deceased Vishnu Namboodiri would show
that the victim died due to the injuries sustained in a motor
vehicle accident on 22.03.2010.
10. PW1 who is the son of the deceased Vishnu
Namboothiri, testified that upon receiving information about the
accident, he reached at the hospital; that his father died due to
the injuries sustained in the accident. Ext.P1 is the First
Information Statement given by him.
11. The prosecution case that at the time of accident,
the victim Vishnu Namboodiri was riding a scooter bearing
Reg.No.KL-7-M/6583 is not disputed by the accused. Like wise,
the fact that the bus bearing Reg.No. KL-13-K/9900 hit the
scooter ridden by the victim is also not seriously disputed. The
evidence on record would show that the accident occurred on a
public road near the stadium complex Kannur, through which
buses were not permitted to be plied by the Regional Transport
Authority.
12. The main argument advanced by the learned
Counsel for the revision petitioner was that the prosecution has
not succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it
was the accused who drove the offending bus at the time of
accident. It was argued that the testimony of PW5 who is said to
have witnessed the incident is unreliable.
13. To substantiate the prosecution case that it was the
accused who was driving the bus at the time of accident,
prosecution would rely on the evidence of PW5 who is an eye
witness to the incident and also produced Ext.P8 trip sheet.
14. PW5 has categorically stated before the Court that he
witnessed the incident. His version is that on 22.03.2010 at
about 12.15 pm, while he was proceeding to the Post Office for
posting a letter, he witnessed the incident. He has also testified
that the driver of the offending bus changed its direction from the
bus route and the bus driver took the bus through another road
situated in front of 'G-sons shop' situated in the Stadium corner,
and it was while so, the bus hit the scooter ridden by the victim.
He has also testified that after hitting the scooter, the bus
dragged the scooter for a short distance; that the rider of the
scooter fell down and sustained injuries.
15. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the version of
PW5 who has categorically testified that he has witnessed the
accident and he had seen the accused who drove the offending
bus at the time of the accident.
16. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for
the accused that in the absence of a test identification parade, no
reliance can be placed on the version of PW5, is untenable. The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not oblige the
investigating agency to necessarily hold a test identification
parade, nor is there any provision under which the accused may
claim a right to the holding of a test identification parade. When
the ocular witness has identified the accused at the time of the
accident and testified before the court that he has seen the
incident and has identified the driver of the offending vehicle,
there is no reason for the court to disbelieve the same unless
there are any materials to hold that the said witness or
investigating officer has any malice or malafide intention to
implicate the accused in the said case. Accused failed to establish
that either PW5 or the investigating officer has any such malice
or oblique motive against him.
17. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the
accused that PW5 is a witness planted by the prosecution and he
is not an eyewitness, is untenable. Though PW5 was cross-
examined at length, defence could not make any dent in his
version that he witnessed the incident.
18. It is a well-settled position of law that on the basis of a
solitary evidence of an eye witness, conviction can be maintained
if the evidence is unblemished and witness is wholly reliable.
19. PW5 is a witness who is found to be wholly reliable
and his evidence is unblemished, so the learned Magistrate and
the learned Sessions Judge were right in relying on the testimony
of PW5 that he witnessed the incident and identified that the
accused was the driver of the bus at the time of accident.
20. PW5 has categorically testified that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused
who was the driver of the bus. He has also testified that the bus
came at an over speed and through the wrong side of the road.
The version given by PW5 that the accident occurred when the
bus driver tried to turn the bus towards the road in front of shop
named 'G-sons' and while turning the bus it hit on the scooter
and after hitting the scooter, the bus dragged the scooter for a
short distance stands unchallenged in cross examination. There
is no case for the accused that there was any contributory
negligence on the part of the victim who was the rider of the
scooter in resulting the accident. Ext.P10 certifies that the
offending bus had no mechanical defects.
21. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that
accused who was the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.
KL-13-K/9900 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner so
as to endanger human life and hit on the scooter ridden by victim
Vishnu Namboodiri and caused his death. I find no reason to
interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction of the accused
for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the offence under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is confirmed.
22. The question is whether the sentence imposed
against the accused needs any interference by this Court. This is
not a fit case wherein the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act can be made applicable. However, I am of the opinion that
substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years awarded
for the offence under Section 304A of IPC can be reduced to
simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part
modifying the sentence alone.
a) Conviction of the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC is
confirmed.
b) The sentence imposed for the offence
under Section 279 IPC that the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for three months is confirmed.
c) The sentence for the offence under
Section 304A IPC is modified to simple imprisonment
for 6 months and to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/-
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of
compensation, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of two months.
d) If the compensation is realised, the entire
amount shall be given to the legal heirs of the victim.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence
against the accused as modified by this Court.
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
Mms
