Kerala High Court
Raju vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 519 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.257 OF 2009 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2017 IN Crl.A NO.262 OF
2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAJU
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MANAKKATTUTHARA
VEEDU, EZHUPUNNA PANCHAYAT WARD-12, CHERTHALA
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 537.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI
SMT.BINCY JOSE (K/341/2015)
SMT.SAJNA T.UMMER
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR POLICE STATION IN
CRIME NO.404 OF 2008 OF THE AROOR POLICE STATION)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI BINDU O V, 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.519 of 2017
2
2025:KER:71775
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.519 of 2017
.....................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Sections 279
and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for
short).
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.257 of
2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Cherthala. He stood trial before that court for committing the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 22.08.2008, at about 08:40
p.m., the accused drove a van bearing Reg.No. KL 07 H 7801 through
Alappuzha-Ernakulam National Highway in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life and when it reached near the U-
turn on the eastern side of Ezhupunna Village Office, overtook the car
bearing Reg.No. KL 01 AQ 1264, which was driven by PW1 and
negligently swerved to the right side to take a U-turn, resulting in the
diesel tank on the right side of the van hitting against the car and the
diesel tank getting exploded. Due to it, the vehicles caught fire and the
2025:KER:71775
occupants of the car sustained injuries.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence
on record, found the accused guilty of committing the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and convicted him
thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each
both under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.App.No.262 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Alappuzha. The said court by judgment dated 23.01.2017, dismissed
the appeal.
6. Heard Sri. Ashik K. Mohamed Ali, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner and Smt. Bindu O.V., the learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the records.
7. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the fact
that it was the accused who was driving the van at the relevant time.
The evidence on record goes to show that the prosecution is mainly
relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 to prove the incident. Their
evidence supports and corroborates each other and shows that on the
fateful day, the van driven by the accused overtook the car in which
they were travelling through its left side and suddenly turned towards
2025:KER:71775
right to take a U-turn, resulting in the diesel tank of the van hitting the
car and causing an explosion. It can thus be seen from their evidence
that the van had overtook the car though the wrong side, i.e., the
extreme left and thereafter, has suddenly taken a right turn, after
overtaking the car and had attempted to take a U-turn. Under normal
parlance, the van should have allowed the car to pass before taking the
right turn or would have followed the car in the right lane and
thereafter, take the U-turn. Even though, the accused has taken a
contention that he had given sufficient signal to the car while turning,
the same will not in any manner help to dislodge the finding as
reached by the trial court and the appellate court that the accused was
driving the van rashly and negligently and has caused the accident.
8. Now, the question to be considered is regarding the
sentence. Considering the nature of the offences, its gravity, and the
facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the sentence
imposed by the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate court is 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 to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 337 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of five days each.
2025:KER:71775
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as follows;
i) The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused
under Sections 279 and 337 IPC in C.C.No. 257 of 2009
by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Cherthala and as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.262
of 2015 by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha,
is upheld.
ii) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/
accused is modified and reduced to one of fine of
Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 337 IPC.
iii) In case of default in payment of fine, the revision
petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of five days each.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
