Kerala High Court
Kunjiraman vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2005
..1..
2025:KER:67105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1098 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2005 IN Crl.A NO.105 OF 2003
OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DIVISION ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2003 IN CC NO.114 OF 2001 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THAMARASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KUNJIRAMAN
S/O.CHANGARAN,
CHENGOTH HOUSE,
KIZHAKKOTH AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADV SHRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODUVALLY POLICE, STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2005
..2..
2025:KER:67105
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution
under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.114
of 2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Thamarassery (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced
trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and
304A of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 05.11.2000
at 2.50 p.m., the petitioner drove the lorry bearing
registration No.KL-11/4119 in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger human life without taking due care and
caution and collided with KSRTC bus bearing registration
No.KL-15/2942 and PWs 1 and 2 and others including one
Muhammed Koya sustained injuries and Muhammed Koya
succumbed to the injuries later on.
..3..
2025:KER:67105
4. Before the trial court, on the side of the
prosecution, PWs 1 to 16 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13
were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was
examined. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the
trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC and
he was convicted for the said offences. He was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under
Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for
one year under Section 304A of the IPC. The substantive
sentence was ordered to run concurrently.
5. The petitioner challenged the conviction and
sentence of the trial court before the Sessions Court,
Kozhikode (for short, the appellate court) in Crl.A.No.105 of
2003. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, confirming
the conviction and sentence. This revision petition has been
filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as
..4..
2025:KER:67105
the appellate court.
6. I have heard Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
impeached the findings of the trial court as well as the
appellate court on appreciation of evidence and the resultant
finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that the
identity of the petitioner has not been properly proved. The
learned counsel further submitted that in fact the accident
was due to the negligence of the KSRTC bus driver who was
examined as PW8 and both the courts failed to appreciate the
evidence of DW1 in this regard in its correct perspective. The
learned counsel also submitted that at any rate the
substantive sentence imposed is excessive.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
..5..
2025:KER:67105
supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial
court and confirmed by the appellate court and argued that
necessary ingredients of Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the
IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded
in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. PWs 1 and 2 are the injured and were travelling in
the KSRTC bus. PW3 is an independent occurrence witness.
PW8 is the driver of the KSRTC bus. The prosecution mainly
relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 8 to prove the
incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. The
prosecution case is that the petitioner negligently took
reverse of the vehicle he drove and hit against the KSRTC
bus. According to the defence version, the vehicle driven by
the petitioner was in stationary and it was the KSRTC bus
which hit the lorry which was lying stationary. PW1, PW2 and
PW3 consistently gave evidence regarding the manner in
which the accident had taken place. They clearly deposed
..6..
2025:KER:67105
that the accident took place on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner. PW1 and PW3 also clearly
identified the petitioner. Even though they were cross-
examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted from
their testimony to discredit the prosecution version. The
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 gets corroboration from the evidence
of PW8, the driver of the KSRTC bus. DW1, who was
examined on the side of the prosecution deposed that the
accident took place due to the negligence on the part of PW8.
However, the trial court as well as the appellate court after
appreciating the prosecution witnesses as well as the
evidence of PW1 found that his evidence cannot be relied on.
It is settled that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible.
Both courts concurrently found that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections
279, 304A and 338 of the IPC. I see no reason to interfere
..7..
2025:KER:67105
with the said finding of conviction.
10. What remains is the sentence. Considering the fact
that the revision petition has been pending for the last 19
years, I am of the view that the substantive sentence
imposed under Section 304A can be reduced to six months.
Accordingly, the substantive sentence imposed under Section
304A of the IPC is reduced to six months, retaining the
substantive sentence imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the appellate court for the offences under
Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. The substantive sentence
shall run concurrently.
The criminal revision petition is allowed in part as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
