Kerala High Court
Velukutty Nair vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No. 2854 of 2006
..1..
2025:KER:70877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2854 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2006 IN Crl.A NO.26 OF 2003
OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2003 IN CC NO.883 OF 2001 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VELUKUTTY NAIR
S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI,
KUZHIVILA VEEDU, ELAPPURAM,,
KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM,
KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No. 2854 of 2006
..2..
2025:KER:70877
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
prosecution under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the
Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.883
of 2001 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Attingal (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 11.03.2001
at 6.30 p.m., the petitioner drove a private bus bearing
registration No.KEV-7477, in a rash and negligent manner so
as to endanger human life through Attingal-Chirayinkeezh
road and when it reached at Palakunnu junction, it hit against
the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01-R-5131, as a
..3..
2025:KER:70877
result, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained
fatal injuries and they succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
4. Before the trial court, on the side of the
prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13
were marked. MO1 to MO2 series were identified. No defence
evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found the
accused/revision petitioner guilty for the offence under
Sections 279, 337, 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 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under
Section 304A of the IPC. No separate sentence was awarded
for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC. The revision
petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial
court before the I Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the appellate court') in
Crl.Appeal No. 26 of 2003. The appellate court confirmed the
..4..
2025:KER:70877
conviction, but modified the sentence. The petitioner was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
each for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC
and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under
Section 304A of the IPC.
5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the
revision petitioner died. No legal heirs of the revision
petitioner have come forward to prosecute the revision
petition. The Supreme Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State
of W.B. [1959 KHC 463] has held that on the death of the
revision petitioner during the pendency of the revision filed
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
the revision shall not be abated and the revisional court has
the power to examine the correctness of the conviction and
sentence. A single bench of this Court in Rev.Bishop
K.M.Chacko v. P.S.Jayaprakash and Another [2009 (3) KHC
67], following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranab
..5..
2025:KER:70877
Kumar Mitra (supra), held that on the death of the revision
petitioner after filing of revision before the High Court
invoking Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the revision will not
be abated and the High Court is bound to dispose of the
revision on merits in accordance with law. It was further held
that even though the legal heirs have not come forward to
pursue the revision, the jurisdiction of the High Court to
decide the revision, after it has been taken on file, on its
merits does not cease.
6. I have perused the entire records and heard
Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of
PWs 3 to 5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on
the accused. PWs 3 to 5 are occurrence witnesses. PW3
deposed that on 11.03.2001 at 6.30 p.m., he saw the
incident. He further deposed that the incident had occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused/revision
..6..
2025:KER:70877
petitioner. He has identified the accused/revision petitioner as
the driver of the bus. PWs 4 and 5, the occurrence witnesses
also gave evidence in tune with the evidence given by PW3.
They deposed that on 11.03.2001 at 6.30 p.m., they saw the
accused/revision petitioner hitting the private bus on the
motorcycle and two persons sustained injuries. They also
gave evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused/revision petitioner. They
identified the accused/revision petitioner as well. PW2 also
sustained injury in that incident. The injury sustained to PW2
is proved through the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P4. The trial
court as well as the appellate court relying on the evidence of
PWs 3 to 5 found that the accused/revision petitioner drove
the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01-R-5131 and the
rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and
thereafter they succumbed to the injuries.
..7..
2025:KER:70877
It is settled that re-appreciation of evidence is
impermissible in revision. I went through the evidence of PWs
3 to 5. I see no reason to interfere with the finding of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the
appellate court. Since the petitioner is no more, practically
the substantive sentence of imprisonment has become
ineffective. The criminal revision petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
