[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Praksh vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
2026:KER:15654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 460 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2018 IN Crl.A NO.67 OF
2017 OF SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2017 IN CC NO.226 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PRAKSH
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN PILLAI,
KARALIPUTHENVEDU(PRAKASH BHAVAN), VALATHUNGAL,
ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. ALBIN T.O-AMICUS CURIAE
BY ADV SHRI.SUNNY ZACHARIAH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY ADV. MAYA M N -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 5.2.2026, THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.460 of 2018 2
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.460 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th February, 2026
ORDER
In this criminal revision petition, challenge is to the judgment in
Crl.A No.67/2017 of Sessions Court, Kollam, by which it confirmed the
conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused in
C.C.No.226/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II,
Kollam, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
of IPC.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2007, at around
9.45 am, accused drove a lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179
through Kottiyam-Chathannoor public road in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger human life and when the lorry reached at Sithara
junction, it hit on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden
by PW1 Thoufik, and thereafter it hit on an autorickshaw bearing
registration No.KL16-C-4818. In the incident, PW1 who was riding the
motorcycle, the autorickshaw driver and the passengers sustained injuries.
Two passengers who were travelling in the said autorickshaw succumbed to
the injuries. It is also the prosecution case that after the incident, accused
did not stop the offending lorry and did not take the injured to the hospital
and he left the place without even informing the police about the incident.
Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial.
4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to
P18. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under
Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused maintained that he is innocent. No
defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
5. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary,
the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 279, 337,
338 and 304A of IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced for the said
offences. Accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 134(a)
(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and he was acquitted of the said offence.
6. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.67/2017
before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the conviction against him for the
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC was confirmed, but
the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of
₹1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 337 IPC,
he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence under Section 338 IPC he was
sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 304A IPC he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine
of ₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months.
7. Revision petitioner/accused impugns the judgment of
conviction and sentence against him contending that there was no rashness
or negligence on his part; that there are material discrepancies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the incident and
therefore the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in relying on
their evidence.
8. 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 there are no reasons to interfere
with the conviction and sentence.
9. When this revision petition came up for hearing, there was no
representation for the revision petitioner/accused and accordingly, this
Court appointed Advocate Sri.Albin T.O, as amicus curiae.
10. Heard both sides.
11. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of conviction
of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 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 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 court may not interfere with the decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction.
12. As per the prosecution case, the incident in this case occurred on
11.10.2007 at around 9.45 am. at 'Sithara Junction' in Kottiyam-
Chathannoor Public road. It is the prosecution case, that the accused
drove the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 through the said road
in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and it hit on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 and
thereafter it hit on an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818
and caused injuries to PW1, and the driver and passengers of the
autorickshaw. One passenger named Eugene succumbed to the injuries
on 16.10.2007 and another passenger named Prakashi succumbed to the
injuries on 12.11.2007 while they were undergoing treatment at the
hospital.
14. PW1 is the defacto complainant. He testified that on the
fateful day, while he was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL2-V-1486 and when he reached at 'Sithara Junction', the lorry driven
by the accused hit on his motorcycle; that he sustained serious injuries and
he was bed ridden for 1½ years. According to him, the rashness and
negligence of the lorry driver was the reason for the accident. He has
categorically testified that the accident occurred when the lorry driver tried
to overtake his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence
tendered by PW1 remains uncontroverted and unchallenged.
15. PW7 testified that he is a witness to the incident; that on
11.10.2007 at around 9.45 am while he was having his tea from a local tea
shop at Sithara Junction, he witnessed the incident. According to him the
lorry first hit on the motorcycle and thereafter hit on an autorickshaw. He
has further testified that he along with the local people rushed to the spot
of accident and tried to save the life of the injured. PW7 has also testified
that the lorry went to the wrong side of the road and it was due to the
rashness and negligence of the lorry driver, the accident occurred. PW7
has also testified that accused was the driver of the lorry which caused the
accident.
16. It is an undisputable fact that two passengers of the
autorickshaw who sustained grievous injuries in the accident succumbed to
the injuries. Exts.P3 and P4 postmortem certificates coupled with the
evidence of doctors who were examined as PW4 and PW5 would amply
prove that the injured named Eugene and Prakashi sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and they succumbed to the injuries.
17. Ext.P11 report would show that there was no mechanical
defect to the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179. Exts.P11 to P13
documents would reveal the damages sustained to the three vehicles
involved in the accident. Ext.P9 is the scene mahazar. Ext.P9 scene
mahazar adds credence to the prosecution case that the lorry which was
proceeding from west to east was on the wrong side of the road at the time
of accident. It supports the prosecution case that the accident occurred
while the lorry driver rashly and negligently tried to overtake another
vehicle.
18. On an appreciation of the evidence on record and the
materials and upon hearing both sides, this Court finds no reason to differ
from the finding of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry
bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 driven by the accused.
19. Rash driving implies driving with wanton disregard for the
safety of others, often accompanied by speedy, overtaking dangerously,
ignoring traffic sign etc.
20. The evidence on record would show that the accused drove
the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life through Kottiyam-Chathanoor Public
road and when it reached Sithara Junction it hit on the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 and thereafter hit on an
autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818. It also stands proved
that PW1 who was the rider of the motor cycle and the passengers of the
autorickshaw sustained severe injuries and the two passengers succumbed
to the injuries in the accident. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the finding of conviction against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Hence, the
conviction of the accused for the said offences stands confirmed.
21. Now, let us see whether the sentence against the accused
needs any interference.
22. Rash and negligent driving has become a grave menace in
India especially in Kerala. There is significant rise in deaths and injuries
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 held that the increasing frequency of motor vehicle accidents
highlights the need for a stricter approach to act as a deterrent.
23. 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."
24. The sentence imposed by the trial court as modified by the
appellate court is not harsh or 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
