Kerala High Court
Sreejesh vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2025
2025:KER:44284
Crl.R.P.No.396 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 396 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2017 IN Crl.A NO.318 OF
2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2014 IN CC NO.1100 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SREEJESH
S/O.DAMODARAN, VASANTHAM VEEDU, WARD NO.14, PINARAYI
PANCHAYAT, THALASERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
SRI.V.S.BOBAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
(S.I. OF POLICE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED
BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MAYA.M.N(PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:44284
Crl.R.P.No.396 of 2017
2
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the accused
in C.C.No.1100 of 2007 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala. He
stood trial for committing the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and
Section 3(1) r/w 181 and 162 r/w 177 of Motor
Vehicles Act and was convicted and sentenced under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The matter
was taken up in appeal by the accused before the
Sessions Court, Alappuzha by filing Crl.A.No.318
of 2014. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment
dated 10.01.2017, dismissed the appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 31.07.2007
at about 6 a.m., the accused drove a mini lorry
bearing registration No.KL-18/B-145 in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life,
2025:KER:44284
through the Ernakulm-Alappuzha National Highway
road from north to south and when it reached in
front of Cherthala Police Station, rashly and
negligently overtook another mini lorry and dashed
against a car bearing registration No.KL-Z-M-1287.
In the accident, one Paul and Rajesh who were
sitting in the front side of the car sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries.
PW1 and PW2 who were sitting on the back side of
the car also sustained grievous injuries. Hence,
the prosecution alleged that the accused have
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the
prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1
to P13 documents were marked. When examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him
2025:KER:44284
in evidence and contended that he is innocent. He
stated that he was driving the lorry carefully and
at that time, a car which was driven rashly and in
over speed came from the opposite side and hit his
lorry on its left side. From the side of the
accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court,
on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found
the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The accused was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 of IPC with a default
clause, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section
337 of IPC, with default clause, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 of IPC with a
2025:KER:44284
default clause and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-
under Section 304A of IPC with a default clause. As
stated earlier, the appeal filed by the accused as
Crl.Appeal No.318 of 2014 ended in dismissal.
4. Heard Adv.Sojan Micheal, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Adv.Maya M.N,
learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner contended that both the trial court and
the appellate court did not properly appreciate the
evidence on record and have arrived at a wrong
conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued
that the identification of the accused by PW2 is
not believable since he is a person who has no pre-
acquintance with the accused and since, no test
identification parade was conducted. He submitted
2025:KER:44284
that the accident has taken place due to the
negligence on the part of the car driver and from
the evidence of PW2 itself, it can be seen that all
the occupants of the car, including the driver,
were drunk. He also submitted that the prosecution
has not proved the place of occurrence and Ext.P9
scene mahazar has not been proved as required by
law. He argued that the conviction under Section
304A of IPC cannot be sustained since the
prosecution has failed to prove that the cause of
death of the two persons in the car was due to the
injuries sustained by them in the accident. Hence,
he prayed that this revision petition may be
allowed.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgments and contended that
there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
2025:KER:44284
She argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are
very clear and shows the manner in which the
accident has taken place. She submitted that even
though PW1 has not identified the accused, PW2 had
positively identified him in the dock and there is
no substantial challenge regarding the same. She
added that the accused himself during 313
examination, has admitted that he was driving the
vehicle at the relevant time. She further submitted
that from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the
evidence of PW10 which shows the exact place of
accident, it can be safely concluded that it is due
to the rashness and negligence of the accused the
accident had taken place. She also argued that the
accused has not disputed the fact that two
occupants in the car had died due to the injuries
sustained in motor vehicle accident. She submitted
2025:KER:44284
that the evidence of PW8 coupled with Ext.P6 and
Ext.P5 would go to show that two of the victims had
died solely due to the injuries sustained in the
incident. Hence, she prayed that this revision
petition may be dismissed.
7. While appreciating the materials on record,
it can be seen that both the trial court as well as
the appellate court has placed heavy reliance on
the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to come to a conclusion
that the accident has occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused. The evidence of
PW1 would reveal that while he was sitting on the
back side of the car and was traveling with other
persons and when they reached in front of Cherthala
Police Station, a mini lorry, which was driven
carelessly, came from the opposite direction and
dashed against their car. He also stated that the
2025:KER:44284
incident thus took place on the left side of the
road and in the impact, he lost his consciousness.
It is true that PW1 did not identify the accused as
the driver of the offending vehicle. He also denied
his signature in Ext.P1 FIS during cross
examination, even though he admitted giving a
statement to the Cherthala Police Station regarding
the incident. But the trial court and the appellate
court has rightly found that the said version of
PW1 need not be given undue weightage, considering
the fact that the accident itself is a admitted
fact.
8. Coming to the evidence of PW2, his evidence
reveals that he has positively identified the
accused in the dock as the driver of the offending
vehicle. In fact, it is to be taken note that the
accused himself has admitted in his 313 examination
2025:KER:44284
that he was driving the lorry at the relevant time.
The evidence of PW2 also shows that while he was
travelling in the car which was going slowly, the
offending lorry came from the northern side,
overtook another lorry and dashed against their
car. Due to the impact, the entire front portion of
the car went underneath the lorry and he sustained
injuries. He also stated that the accident has
taken place due to the negligence of the driver of
the lorry.
9. Going further, from the evidence of PW10-
the investigating officer, it can be seen that the
road at the place of accident is having a width of
10.5 metres and that the accident has taken place
3.5 metres towards the east from the western tar
end. It is not in dispute that the vehicle driven
by the accused was travelling from north to south
2025:KER:44284
and the car in which PW1 and PW2 were travelling
were coming from south to north. If that be so, it
can be safely concluded that at the time of
accident, the lorry driven by the accused was on
the wrong side of the road. The said fact also
gives much credence and support to the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 that the accident had taken place while
the lorry driven by the accused overtook another
lorry carelessly, by transgressing into the wrong
side.
10. Coming to the contention of the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner that the
prosecution has not proved that the death of two
occupants in the car had occurred due to the
injuries sustained in the accident, I find some
merit in it. It is true that the prosecution in its
attempt to prove the said fact has examined PW8,
2025:KER:44284
through whom Exts.P6 and P7 postmortem certificates
were marked. PW8 identified the signature of
Dr.T.V.Thomas, who conducted the postmortem in
Exts.P6 and P7 certificates and the same were thus
marked. But, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, the mere
marking of Exts.P6 and P7 will not amount to proof
of its contents and PW8 has not deposed anything
regarding the contents of Exts.P6 and P7 or as to
the cause of death of the victims. As held by the
Apex Court in Munshi Prasad and Others v. State of
Bihar [(2002) 1 SCC 351], the postmortem report is
a document which by itself is not substantive
evidence but it is the doctor's statement in court,
which has the credibility of a substantive
evidence. In such circumstances, I have no doubt in
my mind that there is no substantive evidence to
2025:KER:44284
prove that the death of the two occupants in the
car had occurred due to the injuries sustained by
them in the incident.
11. As stated earlier, the evidence of PW1 and
PW2 would go to show that they have sustained
injuries in the accident. The evidence of PW7
coupled with Ext.P4 would go to show that PW1 had
sustained grievous hurt in the accident, while his
evidence coupled with Ext.P5 would go to show that
the injuries sustained by PW2 are minor ones.
12. The resultant conclusion of the afore
discussions is that even though the prosecution has
failed in proving that the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, it
has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
2025:KER:44284
13. Now the question to be considered is
regarding the sentence. The learned counsel for the
revision petitioner submits that the revision
petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents
and is now working as a driver in KSRTC and is
having a family to support. He also submitted that
the accident which took place is the first in his
life time and hence, some leniency may be shown
while awarding the sentence. On the other hand, the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
considering the gravity of offences and the fact
that grievous hurt has been sustained by one of the
victims in the accident and the fact that two
persons have lost their lives, no leniency need be
shown.
14. Considering the afore submissions, the
nature of offences, its gravity and the facts and
2025:KER:44284
circumstances of this case, I am of the view that
the sentence imposed by the trial court and as
upheld by the appellate court can be modified and
reduced to one of simple imprisonment till the
rising of the court each under Sections 279, 337
and 338 of IPC. I am also of the view that the
revision petitioner/accused can be ordered to pay a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to PW1, PW2 and
the legal representatives of deceased Paul and
Rajesh under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In case of
non-payment of compensation, the revision
petitioner/accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
In the result, this criminal revision petition
is allowed in part as follows:
(i) The conviction of the revision
petitioner/accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338
2025:KER:44284
of IPC in C.C.No.1100 of 2007 by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala and as
confirmed in Crl.A.No.318 of 2014 by the Sessions
Court, Alappuzha is confirmed.
(ii) The conviction of the revision
petitioner/accused under Section 304A of IPC by the
afore courts is set aside.
(iii) The sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/accused by the trial court and the
appellate court for the offences under Sections
279, 337 and 338 of IPC is modified and reduced to
one of simple imprisonment till the rising of the
court each for the offences under Sections 279,
337 and 338 of IPC.
(iv) The revision petitioner/accused is also
ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each
to PW1, PW2 and the legal representatives of
2025:KER:44284
deceased Paul and Rajesh under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C. In case of default in payment of
compensation, the revision petitioner/accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Scl/
