M.K.Balan vs C.I. Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1057 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1057 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.K.Balan vs C.I. Of Police on 2 February, 2026

                                                            2026:KER:8486

Crl.R.P.No.2417/2006


                                1
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

        MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947

                       CRL.REV.PET NO. 2417 OF 2006

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2006 IN Crl.A NO.521 OF

2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT

OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2004 IN CC NO.17 OF 2000 OF CHIEF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

               M.K.BALAN,
               S/O. RAYIRAPPAN,
               OTHAYANGOTTU HOUSE,
               PANANGADU AMSOM DESOM,
               BALUSSERY.

               BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

    1          C.I. OF POLICE
               CITY TRAFFIC STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY.

    2          STATE OF KERALA
               REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               ERNAKULAM.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                   2026:KER:8486

Crl.R.P.No.2417/2006


                                   2


                                       ORDER

The concurrent findings of the conviction and sentence awarded by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, and the Additional Sessions Court, Fast

Track (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the suspension of driving licence of the

petitioner invoking Section 22(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, are under

challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.11.1999, at about 10.30 am,

the petitioner drove a private bus along the Kozhikode-Kallayi Road, in a rash

and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, and caused the above

vehicle to hit a lady by name 'Thirumala', while she was walking by the side

of the same road in the opposite direction, resulting in serious injuries which

eventually led to her death on 11.12.1999. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to

have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution

examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13, and brought on record 8

documents as Exts.P1 to P8, in support of the charge levelled against the

petitioner. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

                                                                   2026:KER:8486




                                     3
          4.    After       the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned

Magistrate arrived at the finding that the prosecution has successfully

established the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Accordingly, the

petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, and Simple

Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 304A IPC. In

addition to the above penalty, the driving licence of the petitioner was

ordered to be kept under suspension for a period of two years.

5. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal

before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the

learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the

conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above

concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this

Court with this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The accident involved in this case was witnessed by two persons.

One among the above witnesses was the husband of the deceased lady and

the other witness was PW3. Since the husband of the deceased lady passed 2026:KER:8486

4 away before the commencement of the trial, the prosecution could not

examine him as a witness. However, PW3, who had the occasion to see that

accident, stated before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner.

He also identified the petitioner as the driver of the above bus. The

statement of PW3 was to the effect that the bus was coming at a very high

speed, at a time when the vehicular and pedestrian movement were peak in

that area. PW3 categorically stated before the Trial Court that due to the

above rash and negligent driving, the bus happened to hit the deceased lady,

resulting in serious injuries to her.

9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, placed reliance

upon the above statement of PW3 and came to the conclusion that the rash

and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner, resulted in the accident.

There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the

courts below. The evidence adduced by PW3, does not suffer from any

anomaly or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of

its revisional powers. Therefore, it has to be stated that the conviction of the

petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC,

is not liable to be dislodged.

                                                                  2026:KER:8486




                                  5

10. As far as the sentence portion is concerned, it is seen that the

petitioner has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period

of one year for the offence under Section 304A IPC, and Simple

Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC, with the

direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Thus the maximum tenure

of Simple Imprisonment which the petitioner has to undergo is one year, if

the fine imposed by the courts below are promptly remitted. Having regard to

the nature and gravity of the offence alleged in this case, and also the fact

that about 26 years elapsed after the commission of the offence alleged

against the petitioner, I am of the view that the tenure of Simple

Imprisonment awarded by the courts below, is liable to be reduced to 3

months.

Subject to the above modification in the sentence portion, the revision

stands disposed of as follows:

1)The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner

for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, are

hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the

petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2026:KER:8486

6 three months and to pay fine Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only)

for the offence under Section 304A IPC.