Kerala High Court
K.B.Prakasan vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2025
2025:KER:16385
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. 2492 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2010 IN Crl.A NO.775 OF 2008
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2008 IN CC NO.218 OF 2003 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAKADA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K.B.PRAKASAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN, KULATHINKAL VEEDU, NEAR KUTTIKADU DEVI
TEMPLE, KUNNAM PALLIYIL, PARUCHIKKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 026.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.K.JASMIN BABY
SRI.R.SANJITH
SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI. SANAL.P.RAJ-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:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
2
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by the
accused impugning the judgment of the Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal.No. 775/2008. The offences
alleged against the revision petitioner are under Sections 279,
304A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and Section 134 (a & b)
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 30.01.2003 at
7.25 a.m., at a place called Kundamanbhagom in Vilappil village
at Kundamankadavu public road, while the revision
petitioner/accused was driving a KSRTC bus bearing No. KL-15-
4709 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life, it hit one Asokan and his cycle, who was standing on the
footpath. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 10 were
2025:KER:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
examined and Exts.P1 to P13 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.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate
convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months, one year, 15 days and 15 days
respectively for the offences under Section 279, 304A of IPC and
Section 134 (a & b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused is
also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In default of
payment of compensation amount, the accused is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Additional
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and preferred Crl.Appeal
No.775/2008.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed
2025:KER:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
the appeal.
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this criminal
revision petition.
8. Adv. Sanal P. Raj, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is legally sustainable and no interference of this
Court is warranted.
9. Per contra, Adv. R. Sanjith, 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
2025:KER:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
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, the 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 learned counsel for the revision petitioner
further submitted that, when two views are 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 revision petitioner/accused
is that, absolutely there is no evidence to attract the offence under
Section 134 (a) & (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted
that the trial court ought not to have convicted the
accused/revision petitioner only on the basis of interested
2025:KER:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
testimony of PW1. PW1 is none other than the brother-in-law of
the deceased. It is trite law that the interestedness by itself is not
a ground to reject the evidence of a witness. Therefore, I do not
find any force in such contention. It is trite law that it is the
quality of the evidence, not the quantity of the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, is to be looked into, while convicting the
accused.
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.
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner may be
released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. Considering the nature, gravity of the offence and
the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the
2025:KER:16385
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2492 OF 2012
substantive sentence imposed by the court in this matter under the
various sections is to be modified and reduced to imprisonment till
rising of the court.
In the result,
(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the trial court under
various provisions are modified and reduced to imprisonment till
rising of the court.
(iii) The compensation ordered and the default sentence are
maintained.
(iv) The trial court shall execute the sentence in the modified
form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
