[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Krishnankutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2026
2026:KER:10511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 118 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.210 OF 2013 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF
THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.795 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS I,VARKALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. SHANMUKHAN, RUBEERVILA VEEDU, NEAR CASHEWNUT
FACTORY, CHARUMKUZHY, ELAKAMON DESOM,
AYIROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
SRI.M.CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
SMT.MAYA M N-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING 23.1.2026, THE COURT ON 05.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2018 2
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th February, 2026
ORDER
In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused assails
the judgment in Crl.A No.210/2013 of Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence
against him in C.C.No.795/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court I, Varkala, for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 337 and 304A IPC.
2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 5.5.2004 at around
8.30 pm. accused who was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KL-15-2594 (T.N.557), drove the said bus in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life through Kallambalam-
Varkala public road and hit on a scooter bearing registration No. No.KL-
01-W2918 ridden by PW1 with his minor daughter Archana, as a pillion
rider. In the accident, PW1 and the pillion rider fell down on the road
and sustained severe injuries. The pillion rider, Archana aged 15
succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Accused thereby committed
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.
3. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P15. No
defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
4. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced
for the said offences. For the offence under Section 304A IPC he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a
fine of ₹3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Section 279 IPC,
he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/- in default of payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under
Section 337 IPC, he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/- , in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. From the judgment of conviction and sentence though the
accused preferred Criminal Appeal as Crl.A No.210/2013 before the
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the same was dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.
6. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused has
preferred this revision, contending that the trial court and the appellate
court went wrong in analysing the evidence in its correct perspective;
that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused;
that the testimonies of PW1 and PW8 are unbelievable and the court
went wrong in relying on their evidence; that the prosecution failed to
establish the case against the accused and the accused is entitled to get
an order of acquittal.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the
accused; that the trial court and the appellate court have appreciated
the evidence in its correct perspective and therefore, there are no
reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of
conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and
304A IPC rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by
the appellate court needs any interference by this Court, we have to
bear in mind the well settled principle that the revisional power of the
court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is not to be equated with
that of an appeal and unless the finding of the court which is under
challenge is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on
no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may
not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
(Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Ors.
[(2015) 3 SCC 123], Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165]
10. Bearing in mind the above well-settled principle, now let us
analyse the evidence on record.
11. PW1, who is the defacto complainant testified that on
5.5.2004 at 8.30 pm while he was riding his scooter bearing registration
No.KL-01-W2918, with his daughter Archana, aged 15 years, as pillion
rider and when they reached near Varkala under passage, a KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KL-15-2594 driven by the accused, hit on his
scooter and as a result of which he and his daughter fell on the road and
both of them sustained injuries. His further version is that though both
of them were taken to hospital, his daughter Archana, who sustained
grievous injuries, succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 9.45
pm. He has further testified that it was due to the rash and negligent
driving of the KSRTC bus by the accused, the accident occurred. He
has further testified that through the rear mirror of his scooter, he had
seen the bus approaching his scooter from behind. Ext.P1 is the FI
statement given by him. Ext.P2 is the FIR. Ext.P15 is the wound
certificate of PW1. Ext.P13 is the postmortem certificate of deceased
Archana.
12. PW8 testified that he was a passenger of the KSRTC bus
involved in the accident. According to him, he was travelling in the said
bus from Kallambalam to Varkala and he was sitting in the front seat of
the said bus. His further version is that when the bus reached at
Varkala under pass, it hit on the scooter ridden by PW1. According to
him, as he was sitting in the front seat of the bus, he saw the bus hitting
on the scooter which was proceeding in front of the bus. He has also
testified that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by
the accused, the accident occurred. Further he has testified that in the
said accident, the scooterist namely, PW1 and his daughter sustained
injuries; that the injured were taken to the hospital. He has also
testified that subsequently he came to know that the girl, who sustained
injuries in the said accident died. His specific version is that it was due
to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the accident
occurred. He has also identified the accused as the driver of the bus at
the time of incident.
13. It is an undisputable fact that the injured Archana, who
was the pillion rider of the scooter ridden by PW1, suffered grievous
injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries on 5.5.2004 at
9.45 pm. Ext.P13, coupled with the evidence of PW7 doctor who
conducted the autopsy examination on the body of Archana, would show
that Archana died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident.
14. Ext.P3 is the scene mahazar. Ext.P5 is the mahazar
prepared for the KSRTC bus and the scooter involved in the accident.
Ext.P10 is the report filed by the investigating officer before the court
showing the name and address of the accused.
15. Exts.P11 and P12 are the inspection reports filed by the
Motor Vehicle Inspector, namely PW3 after examining the KSRTC bus
and the scooter involved in the accident. It would show that there were
no mechanical defects to the KSRTC bus and the scooter involved in the
accident. It would also reveal that the bus sustained damage in its left
and front portions, and the scooter sustained damage on both sides. The
damages caused to the said vehicles corroborates the case of the
prosecution that the bus hit the scooter ridden by PW1 from its behind.
Accused has no case at all that there was any contributory negligence on
the part of PW1, who was the rider of the scooter.
16. There is no reason for this Court to come to a different
view than the finding of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions judge
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
KSRTC Bus bearing No.KL-15-2594 driven by the accused.
17. Rash driving implies driving with wanton disregard for the
safety of others, often accompanied by speedy, overtaking dangerously,
ignoring traffic sign etc.
18. The evidence on record would show that the accused drove
the bus bearing registration No.KL-15-2594 in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life and it hit the scooter bearing
registration No.KL-01W-2918 ridden by PW1 with his daughter, namely
the victim girl, as pillion rider. It also stands proved that PW1 and his
daughter Archana sustained injuries and the victim girl succumbed to
the injuries on the same day. The evidence on record would show that
the accused drove the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15-2594 in
a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, through the
public road and caused the death of a girl aged 15 years and also caused
injuries to PW1. Therefore, this Court find no reason to interfere with
the finding of guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the
accused for the said offences stands confirmed.
19. Now, let us see whether the sentence against the accused
needs any interference.
20. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
pointed out that the accused is a first time offender and therefore, it is a
fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
21. Rash and negligent driving has become a grave menace in
India especially in Kerala. There is significant rise in deaths caused by
rash and negligent driving. Every year thousands of innocent lives are
lost due to careless and reckless driving. The law cannot treat such loss
casually. Every motor accident leaves behind grieving families. The
psychological and mental trauma faced by the victim's families is
immeasurable. In a catena of decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly explained that the increasing frequency of motor vehicle
accidents highlights the need for a stricter approach to act as a
deterrent.
22. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 82],
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents
in India and the devastating consequences visiting the
victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the
nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting
the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence,
to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or
negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime
considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver
pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost
throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform
himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of
laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a
vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a
chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily
cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need
not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or
even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the
offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be
dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in
his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the
offence for causing death of a human being due to his
callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail
sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play,
particularly at the level of Trial Courts, for lessening the
high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of
automobiles."
23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as rightly held by the trial court and
the appellate court. The sentence imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the appellate court is not harsh and excessive. Therefore,
I find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the
accused.
In the result revision petition stands dismissed.
The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence.
Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
