Kerala High Court
Velayudhan Pillai @ Velappan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No.957/2006
1
2025:KER:71738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 957 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2005 IN Crl.A NO.91
OF 1998 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CC
NO.70 OF 1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-I,NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VELAYUDHAN PILLAI @ VELAPPAN PILLAI
S/O.RAJAPPAN PILLAI, DRIVER,, K.S.R.T.C.,
NEDUMANGAD DEPOT.
BY ADVS. SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR
SRI.K.G.RENGANATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.957/2006
2
2025:KER:71738
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution
under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
2. The petitioner is the accused in CC No.70/1995
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Nedumangad (for short, the trial court). He faced trial for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that, on
2.9.1994 at about 8.45 am, the petitioner drove a KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.TR-517 in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger human life and when it reached Kaliyal
Junction, it hit against the deceased boy who was walking along
with two other children along the left side from south to east
and thereby committed the offences. Though the injured boy
was admitted in hospital, he succumbed to the injuries at the
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW16 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked on the side of the
prosecution. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ext.D1 was
marked on the side of the defence. After trial, the trial court
2025:KER:71738
found the petitioner guilty and he was convicted for the said
offences. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under
Section 304A of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC.
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the
trial court before the II Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram (for short, the appellate court) in
Crl.A.No.91/1998. The appellate court dismissed the appeal.
This revision petition was filed challenging the judgments of the
trial court as well as the appellate court.
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
2025:KER:71738
K.M.Chacko v. P.S.Jayaprakash and Another [2009 (3) KHC
67], following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranab
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.Sangeetha Raj N.R, the learned Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW2,
PW3 and PW12 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on
the accused. They were the eye witnesses. PW12 is another
student who was walking along with the deceased. PW2 and
PW3 were the occurrence witnesses. All these three witnesses
clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to the high
speed and rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Even
though they were cross examined in length, nothing tangible
could be extracted to discredit their testimony. The defence set
up by the petitioner is that there was a pool of water in the
2025:KER:71738
margin of the road and the accident occurred when the
deceased jumped across the pool. However, Ext.P6 scene
mahazar as well as the evidence of the occurrence witnesses
disprove the said defence version. The trial court as well as the
appellate court concurrently found that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. I see no
reason to take a different view and to interfere with the
concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. Since the
petitioner is no more, the substantive sentence has become
inoperative. The fine imposed shall be realised in accordance
with law. The criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
