Kerala High Court
Suresh.C.S vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 4TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 173 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2011 IN Crl.APPEAL NO.301 OF
2010 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF
THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2010 IN CC NO.140 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, PERAMBRA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SURESH.C.S.,
AGED 28 YERS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHERUVILA HOUSE,
EDAPUZH P.O., PAYAM, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM DESOM,
THALASERY THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.
BY ADV.:
SMT. MAYA.M.N - PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 173 OF 2012 -2-
2025:KER:6864
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition is
preferred by the accused impugning the judgment of the
Addl. Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal.No.
301/2010. The offences alleged against the revision
petitioner are under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the
erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that,
on 24.12.2008 at 2.30 p.m., while the revision petitioner
was driving a lorry bearing No.KL-07-AK-7313 in a public
road, the back door of the said lorry detached from the
body and fell on one Jithesh who was riding a motor cycle
and caused serious injuries and he succumbed to the
injuries. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the accused/
revision petitioner has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC.
3. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 11 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. After the
2025:KER:6864
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.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the
Sessions Court and preferred Crl.Appeal No.301/2010.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode
allowed the appeal in part and modified the sentence as
follows:
"In the result, finding guilty, conviction
entered and sentence passed against the
appellant/accused for the offence under
section 279 IPC cannot be sustained in law
and set aside. Appellant/accused is found
not guilty and acquitted of the offence under
section 279 IPC. Finding guilty, conviction
entered for the offence under section 304(A)
IPC is confirmed and the sentence is
modified. The appellant/accused is
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
2025:KER:6864
for six months for the offence under section
304(A) IPC. Order suspending the driving
license of the appellant/accused for six
months is also confirmed."
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, the accused preferred this
criminal revision petition.
8. 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.
9. Per contra, Adv.P.R.Sreejith, 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 further submitted
that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove that
the petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and
2025:KER:6864
negligent manner. No witnesses spoke about the
rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
Instead, the witnesses would only deposed that the
vehicle was driven in an over speed.
11. 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.
12. It is further submitted that, both the trial
court and the appellate court had failed to appreciate the
scene mahazar in its correct perspective.
13. Adv.P.R.Sreejith, 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.
14. The main contention of the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner is that the lorry
involved in the accident has a valid Fitness Certificate.
2025:KER:6864
Had the lorry been in a poor condition, it would not have
obtained Fitness Certificate.
15. It is further submitted that in fact, the
bike hit the lorry as spoken by PW7 and thus the
prosecution failed to prove the charge against the
accused as alleged by them. It is further submitted that
there was a pit in the middle of the road, as evident from
Ext.P6 Scene mahazar, having a length of 1.40 meters,
1.25 meters width and depth of 20 centimeters and it
was water logged. At the time of the alleged occurrence,
the revision petitioner/accused could not identify the pit
in the road and that was the reason for the incident. It is
the case of the revision petitioner that both the trial
court and appellate court overlooked this vital aspects.
16. I have heard the rival submissions of the
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
17. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the
learned counsel across the Bar and perused the records,
I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety,
2025:KER:6864
whatsoever so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court. The trial court and appellate court correctly
appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a
proper conclusion. 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.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the suspension of driving license for a period
of six months imposed by the trial court under Section 20
of the MV Act is hereby set aside. 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.
2025:KER:6864
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed in
this matter is modified and
reduced to imprisonment till rising
of the court.
(iii) The fine imposed and the default
sentence are maintained.
(iv) The revision petitioner shall
surrender before the trial court
within 45 days from the date of this
order to receive the sentence.
(v) Suspension of driving license of the
revision petitioner for a period of six
months is set aside.
(vi) The trial court shall execute the
sentence in the modified form.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
vv
