Kerala High Court
Sunny Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2025
2025:KER:16042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2013 IN Crl.A NO.16 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2010 IN CC NO.464 OF 2007 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SUNNY JOSEPH,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH, PARANAYIL HOUSE, MALIPPARA SOCIETYPADY
BHAGAM, PINDIMANA KARA, PINDIMANA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.TOMY
SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
RESPONDENT:
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 HEARING ON
22.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16042
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
2
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by the
accused impugning the judgment of Additional District and
Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha in Crl.Appeal.No. 16/2011. The
offences alleged against the revision petitioner are under
Sections 279 and 304A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, On
30.06.2007 at about 3.30 p.m., while the accused was driving a
Maruthi Omini van bearing registration No. KL-7/H 2200 through
the Kothamangalam-Muvattupuzha public road towards north in a
rash and negligent manner and in an over speed. When the
vehicle reached at Nanjoolmala Colony junction, it hit on a motor
cycle bearing registration No. KL-17/C 2391 driven by one Ansar
coming from the opposite direction. Sri. Ansar was thrown away
from the motorcycle due to the impact of the hit and sustained
serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 10 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P11 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
2025:KER:16042
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
Procedure.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate
convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- under
Section 304A of IPC. In default in paying fine, the accused shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three
months. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the
offence under Section 279 IPC. In default in paying the fine, the
accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Additional
District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha and preferred
Crl.Appeal No.16/2011.
6. The learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge dismissed the appeal.
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this
criminal revision petition.
8. Adv.M.N. Maya, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions
2025:KER:16042
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
Judge is legally sustainable and no interference of this Court is
warranted.
9. Per contra, C.M. Tomy, 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
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. Adv. C.M. Tomy, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner further submitted that, when two views are
2025:KER:16042
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
possible, one showing the guilt of the accused and the other
pointing out the innocence of the accused, the Court shall accept
the latter view.
13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner/accused is that the identity of the revision
petitioner is not proved. On perusal of the records, it will be seen
that he has been properly identified by PWs 3 and 4. He further
submitted that it is not stated in the police charge that in which
direction the Maruthi van was coming and the other motorcycle
was coming.
14. Even though the learned counsel for the revision
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. 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.
2025:KER:16042
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1567 OF 2013
In the result,
(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the trial court
under various sections are modified and reduced to
imprisonment till rising of the court.
(iii) The fine imposed and the default sentence are
maintained.
(iv) The trial court shall execute the sentence in the
modified form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
