Kerala High Court
Parameswaran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
CRL.R.P.No.379 of 2016
1
2025:KER:43249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 379 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2016 IN Crl.A NO.130
OF 2015 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.04.2015 IN CC NO.931 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT -I,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT / ACCUSED:
PARAMESWARAN NAIR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, "REVATHY", VALIYARATHARA,
MARUKIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.No.379 of 2016
2
2025:KER:43249
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
CRL.R.P.No.379 of 2016
---------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the sole accused in
C.C.No.931/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara. He stood trial for
committing the offences punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304 A IPC before that court and was convicted and
sentenced thereunder.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence thus
passed, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal
No.130/2015 before the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram. The said court, vide judgment dated
12.02.2016, allowed the appeal in part, thereby confirming
the conviction and modifying the sentence.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 21.04.2006 at
2025:KER:43249
about 8.30 am, the accused drove a car bearing
registration No.KL 01 Q 9001 through the Kanyakumari -
Thiruvananthapuram NH Road in a rash and negligent
manner and hit on the rear side of the bicycle pedalled by
the deceased Mohanan Nair, when he reached near
Karamana bridge. It is alleged that due to the accident,
Mohanan Nair sustained serious injuries and he succumbed
to those injuries on the same day at about 3.00 pm.
4. In the trial court, from the side of the
prosecution, PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exts.P1 to
P11 documents were marked. When examined under
Section 313 of Cr.PC, the accused pleaded innocence and
contended that it is a red Maruti car, which had knocked
down, the deceased, while the deceased overtook the car
driven by the him in his bicycle. From the side of the
accused, DW1 was examined, but no documents were
marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence
on record, found that the accused guilty and convicted him
2025:KER:43249
under Sections 279, 338 and 304 A IPC. He was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with a default clause under
Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of one
month under Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for
a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-
with default clause under Section 304 A IPC. As stated
earlier in the appeal preferred by the accused, while
upholding the conviction, the sentence was modified to one
of fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC, a fine of
Rs.2500/- under Section 338 IPC, both with a default
clause and simple imprisonment for a period of two months
under Section 304 A IPC.
5. Heard Smt.Brejitha Unnikrishnan, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N, the
learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
contended that, even if the entire evidence adduced by the
2025:KER:43249
prosecution is accepted in toto, the conviction against the
accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304 A IPC cannot be
sustained. She submitted that both the trial court and the
appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in a
proper perspective and have arrived at a wrong conclusion
of the guilt against the accused. She argued that, as
discernable from the evidence of DW1, the accident had
taken place when the deceased, who was riding a cycle
overtook the car, which was driven by the accused and was
hit by a Maruti car in that process. She further submitted
that, apart from the evidence of PW2, there is no other
evidence available to prove the offence and the evidence of
PW2 is not believable. She also argued that, going by the
evidence of PW2 and PW13 itself, the accident had taken
place in the center of the road and in such circumstances
negligence/rashness cannot be attributed on the accused.
Hence, she prayed that this revision petition may be
allowed.
2025:KER:43249
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgments and contended that
there are no grounds to interfere with the same. She
argued that the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that the car
was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner
and at high speed and has dashed it against the cycle
pedalled by the deceased. She further submitted that the
medical evidence adduced conclusively proves that the
deceased died due to the head injury sustained in the
incident. Hence, she prayed that this revision petition may
be dismissed.
8. On going through the materials on record, it is to
be seen that both the trial court and the appellate court
have placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW2, the
eye witness, to find the accused guilty of the offences
alleged. The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that, at about
8.30 am on 21.04.2006, he had witnessed the car driven by
the accused hitting the back side of the cycle driven by the
2025:KER:43249
deceased. He stated that the car was driven rashly,
negligently and in over speed and due to the hit, the victim
fell down on the road. It is true that the evidence of PW7
coupled with Ext.P3 report and Ext.P9 mahazar would show
that the Ambassador car driven by the accused had
suffered damage in the bumper and grill portion on its front
side and it supports the evidence of PW2 regarding the
accident.
9. But, it is very relevant to note that the evidence
of PW13, the Investigating Officer, coupled with Ext.P2
scene mahazar would go to show that the accident has
taken place in the middle of the road. His evidence also
shows that he could not find any reason as to why the
victim was found in the middle portion of the road when the
car hit him. The evidence of PW2 would also confirm the
said fact and shows that the accident has taken place in the
middle of the road. The afore witness also could not explain
as to the circumstances under which the victim had moved
2025:KER:43249
his bicycle to the middle portion of the road. It is true that,
as stated earlier, PW2 has testified that the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by
the accused. But, I am of the view that, in the absence of
any explanation forthcoming from the side of the
prosecution as to how the deceased happened to be in the
middle of the road with his cycle when he was hit, the
version of PW2 attributing rashness and negligence on the
part of the accused cannot be accepted. It is to be kept in
mind that the testimony of PW2 only reflects his
subjective satisfaction and does not give any details as to
how he assessed the conduct of the accused as rash /
negligent. Under normal circumstances, one cannot accept
the conduct of a person riding a bicycle through the
middle of a road and that too, a National Highway.
Normally, a prudent man will only occupy the left end of the
tarred road while pedalling a bicycle, since the major
portion of the road is left for usage by motor vehicles. The
2025:KER:43249
driver of a motor car or any other motor vehicle also cannot
expect such a conduct from a bicycle rider. In the absence
of materials pointing out the circumstances under which the
deceased bicycle rider came to the middle of the road
having a width of 7 meters, it cannot be found that the
accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the car by the accused. The afore discussion
leads me to conclude that the prosecution has not proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioner/
accused had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner
and has dashed it against the bicycle ridden by the
deceased. Both the trial court and and the appellate court
have failed in appreciating the evidence on record in a
proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of
guilt against the accused. Ergo, the irresistible conclusion is
that the revision petition is only to be allowed, thereby
setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against
the revision petitioner / accused.
2025:KER:43249
In the result, this revision petition is allowed as
follows:-
I) The conviction and sentence of the revision
petitioner/ accused under Sections 279, 338 and
Neyyattinkara and as upheld with modifications in
Criminal Appeal No.130/2015 by the Additional
Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram are set
aside and the revision petitioner / accused is set at
liberty.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
