Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2025
2025:KER:16108
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. 250 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2012 IN Crl.A NO.561 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2011 IN CC NO.655 OF 2010 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SURESH BABU, AGED 46,
S/O. VASU, DHANASREEYIL VEEDU,
CHIRAKKADAVOM MURI, KMC WARD-32, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
SRI.JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
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:16108
CRL.REV.PET NO. 250 OF 2013
2
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is preferred by the
accused impugning the judgment of Additional Sessions Court-I,
Mavelikara in Crl.Appeal.No. 561/2011. 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
20.06.2010 at about 2.30 p.m., while the accused was driving a
car bearing registration No.KL 2 AB - 5415 in a rash and
negligent manner through Kayamkulam-Alapuzha NH-47 road
and when it reached near Kareelakulangara junction, it hit
against a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 26-9158. As a
result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle named Arun
sustained severe injuries, and later he succumbed to the injuries.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 10 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P8 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:16108
CRL.REV.PET NO. 250 OF 2013
Procedure.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate
convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of IPC and to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304A
of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Additional
Sessions Court-I, Mavelikara and preferred Crl.Appeal
No.561/2011.
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.Sanal P. Raj, 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, T.I. Abdul Salam, learned counsel for
2025:KER:16108
CRL.REV.PET NO. 250 OF 2013
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. T.I. Abdul Salam, 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
2025:KER:16108
CRL.REV.PET NO. 250 OF 2013
the latter view. He further submitted that the trial court and the
appellate court convicted the accused on mainly on the evidence
of PWs 2 and 3. PW3 to PW5 are the occurrence witnesses. PW5
turned hostile to the prosecution. The trial court and the first
appellate court mainly relied on the evidence of PW3 and PW4.
13. It is submitted that there is a material contradiction
in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW3 would say that
it is a Maruti omini car which caused the accident. In scene
mahazar, Ext.P7, it is stated that the car involved in the accident
is a Maruti Swift Dzire car. According to the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner, this is a material contradiction which cut
the very root of the prosecution case.
14. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted his argument,
contending that both the vehicles are manufactured by one
manufacturer, and it is not a material contradiction to discard the
entire prosecution story.
15. Upon hearing the submissions, I do not find much
force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner/accused. However, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner further submitted that the sentence imposed in
2025:KER:16108
CRL.REV.PET NO. 250 OF 2013
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.
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 trial court shall execute the sentence in the
modified form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
