Kerala High Court
Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
1
2025:KER:44618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1288 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2016 IN Crl.A NO.999
OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2009 IN CC NO.1211 OF 2006
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT /
ACCUSED:
JAYARAJAN
AGED 46 YEARS,S/O RAVUNNY VAIDYAR, PADUSSERY
PRAMBIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM
DIST.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
SRI.K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER
SRI.T.V.SHAJI
SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KORATTY POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
2
2025:KER:44618
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-31
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
3
2025:KER:44618
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
CRL.R.P.No.1288 of 2016
---------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the sole accused in
C.C.No.1211/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. He stood trial for committing
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304 A IPC before that court and was convicted and
sentenced thereunder. The appeal preferred by the accused
as Criminal Appeal No.999/2009 before the Additional
Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, was allowed in part wherein
the conviction was sustained and the sentence was modified.
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.03.2006 at
about 10.00 pm, the accused drove a private bus bearing
Registration No.KL-1-S 5337, through the National Highway
in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life,
from South to North and when it reached a place called
2025:KER:44618
Muringoor Divine Junction, hit a Jeep bearing registration
No.KL/11/D/1780, driven by PW2, coming from North to
South. All the nine passengers in the Jeep sustained injuries
and two among them succumbed to their injuries.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution,
PWs 1 to 21 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 documents
were marked. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC,
the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in evidence and stated that the
accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving.
From the side of the accused, a passenger in the bus was
examined as DW1. The trial court, on an appreciation of the
evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted
him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of IPC. The
accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section
2025:KER:44618
337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 304 A IPC, all with a default
clause. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.Appeal
No.999/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld
the conviction rendered by the trial court, but modified the
sentence. The appellate court sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for a
period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of
four months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section
304 A IPC, all with a default clause.
4. Heard Sri.P.M. Abdul Jaleel, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N, the learned
2025:KER:44618
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court
did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and
has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the
accused. He submitted that the evidence of DW1 was not at
all appreciated properly by both the courts and they relied
on Ext.P19 scene mahazar, without the same being proved.
He also argued that the identification of the accused made
by the material witnesses is not believable since, the
accident has taken place at 10.00 pm and the witnesses
have no pre-acquaintance with the accused. He contended
that there is no corroborative piece of evidence to support
the oral testimony of the witnesses to show that the bus was
driven rashly, negligently and in over speed and has
transgressed into the wrong portion when it dashed against
the jeep.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor
2025:KER:44618
supported the impugned judgments and contended that
there are no grounds to interfere with the same. She argued
that the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6 are credible
and cogent and they clearly show that it is the accused, who
has driven the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner
and in over speed and has dashed against the Jeep, while
attempting to overtake another vehicle. She further
submitted that, going by Ext.P19 scene mahazar, the
accident has taken place 6 metres towards east from the
western tar end and since, the road is having width of 10
metres, it can be safely presumed that the bus was on its
wrong side. Hence, she prayed that this revision petition
may be dismissed.
7. On going through the materials on record, it can
be seen that both the trial court and the appellate court has
placed heavily reliance upon the evidence of PWs 1 to PW3,
PW5 and PW6 to reach a finding of guilt against the accused.
The evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW6, clearly shows
2025:KER:44618
that they have identified the accused as the person, who
was driving the bus at the relevant time. It is also
discernable from their evidence that, at the time of the
accident, the bus was driven in over speed and carelessly
and it had over took a vehicle and dashed against the Jeep.
The evidence of PW3 further reveals that at the time when
the bus dashed against the Jeep, it was on the wrong side of
the road. As found by the trial court and the appellate court,
the evidence of these witnesses, even after extensive cross-
examination remains credible and cogent and I also do not
find any reason to disbelieve them. Similarly, as found by
these courts, the evidence of DW1 cannot be believed since,
he is a person who is well acquainted with the accused.
8. It is true that both the trial court and the
appellate court have relied on the contents of Ext.P19 scene
mahazar in order to corroborate the testimony of the
witnesses that the bus was on the wrong side of the road.
But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:44618
revision petitioner the mere marking of the mahazar will not
constitute proof of its contents. The evidence of PW21
clearly shows that he has not spoken anything about the
contents of Ext.P19. But even if it is so, since the evidence
of the material eye witnesses are credible and cogent, I am
of view that the absence of this corroborative piece of
evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case.
9. As stated earlier, it is the prosecution case that, in
the accident two among the passengers in the Jeep who
sustained injuries, have succumbed to the injuries. Both the
trial court and the appellate court had rendered finding that
the accused is guilty of committing an offence punishable
under Section 304 A IPC. The records also shows that in
order to prove that these two persons have died due to the
injuries sustained in the accident, the prosecution has
examined PW15 and has marked Exts.P13 &P14 postmortem
certificates. PW15 has opined that the cause of death of
Ramachandran is due to head injury and the cause of
2025:KER:44618
death of Byju is due to multiple injuries. But, an appraisal of
the evidence of PW15 would show that she has not spoken
anything about the injuries sustained by these persons, the
cause of injuries, the date / time of death and as to whether
these injuries had resulted in their death. At this juncture, I
will take note of the fact that the prosecution has also not
produced any medical records of these persons to prove
these facts. If so, from the evidence of PW15, it cannot be
deciphered that Ramachandran and Byju have indeed
sustained injuries in the accident or that they have
succumbed to those injuries. It is a settled law that mere
marking of a postmortem certificate will not constitute proof
of its contents. As held by the Apex Court in Munshi
Prasad and others vs. 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.
If so, I find that there is no substantive evidence to prove
2025:KER:44618
that the death of the Ramachandran and Byju had occurred
due to the injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle
accident. As regards the other injured persons, it has come
out in the evidence of PWs 11, 16, 17 and 18 coupled with
Exts.P4 to P10 and P15 to P18 that PW2 and PW4 have
suffered grievous hurt and PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have
sustained simple injuries in the accident. If so, I find no
error in the conclusion reached by the courts finding the
accused guilty under Section 337 and 338 IPC.
10. The upshot of the afore discussions is that, even
though the trial court and the appellate court, while
appreciating the evidence, has arrived at a wrong conclusion
of guilt against the accused under Section 304 A IPC, they
have correctly found that the accused has committed the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
11. Coming to the question of sentence, considering
the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances
of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence
2025:KER:44618
imposed on the revision petitioner / accused under Section
279, 337 and 338 IPC are on a higher side and the same
can be modified and reduced. I am thus of the view that the
revision petitioner / accused can be ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. I am also of
the view that he can be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 337 IPC and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 7 days. I am of the further
view that the revision petitioner / accused can also be
ordered to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the
court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC
and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 15 days.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as
follows:-
I) The conviction of the revision petitioner /
accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC
in C.C.No.1211/2006 by the Judicial First Class
2025:KER:44618
Magistrate Court, Chalakudy and as confirmed in
Crl.Appeal No.999/2009 by the Additional
Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is upheld.
II) The conviction and sentence rendered against
the revision petitioner / accused under Section
304 A IPC by these courts is set aside.
III) The revision petitioner / accused is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 279 IPC and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days, to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 7 days and to undergo simple
imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 15 days.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
