[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.Ramaswamy vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
2026:KER:14338
Crl.R.P.No.249/2012
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 249 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2011 IN Crl.A NO.19 OF
2011 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2010 IN CC NO.45 OF 2007 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NEDUMKANDOM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
P.RAMASWAMY
S/O.PERUMAL,
TNSTC STAFF NO.51407,
(THENI DEPOT) KALIAMMAN KOVIL,
STREET BODY, BODY TALUK,
THENI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2026, THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14338
Crl.R.P.No.249/2012
-:2:-
ORDER
The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Thodupuzha, in Crl.A.No.19/2011 confirming the conviction of the
petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Nedumkandam, for
the commission of offences under Sections 279, 338 & 304A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and awarding modified sentence
for the offences under Section 338 & 304A IPC , is under challenge in
this revision petition filed by the accused in that case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 11.07.2006, at about
10:30 a.m., the petitioner drove a stage carriage in a rash and negligent
manner, likely to endanger human life, along Munnar-Pooppara road, and
caused the above bus to hit a motor bike driven by the victim, coming in
the opposite direction, leading to fatal injuries to the victim and grievous
hurt to PW5, the wife of the victim, who was travelling as pillion rider.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11, and marked 12 documents as
Exts P1 to P12. 10 material objects were also identified and marked as
MO1 to MO10. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that
the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of Sections 279, 338 &
2026:KER:14338
304A IPC and convicted him thereunder. The petitioner was accordingly
sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279
IPC, and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC and
simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 304A IPC. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict
in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction
awarded by the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court excluded the
punishment awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 279
IPC, while confirming the sentence for the offence under Sections 338 &
304A IPC, except the fine portion which was reduced to Rs.5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the
petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. Among the 11 witnesses examined from the part of the
prosecution, PW5, the wife of the deceased, is the one and only witness
who testified before the Trial Court about the rash and negligent driving
of the petitioner resulting in the accident. The Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the testimony of PW5 to
2026:KER:14338
arrive at the finding that the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner
resulted in the accident. However, it is pertinent to note that PW5 has
made it clear during cross-examination that at the time of accident, she
was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor bike driven by her husband,
by sitting in such a manner that her both legs were towards the same
side of the motor bike. Admittedly, the bus came in the opposite direction
and there was a head-on collision with the motor bike. PW5 had also
made it clear in her statement that she lost consciousness immediately
after the bus hit the motor bike and that it was only after 42 days that
she regained consciousness. Having regard to the above nature of the
evidence, it is not possible to give any credence to the statement of the
above witness that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the
petitioner had resulted in the accident. It would be highly unsafe and
improper to fasten the petitioner with the criminal liability for rash and
negligent driving on the basis of the above statement of PW5. Thus, it
has to be stated that the courts below had relied on evidence which
ought not have been accepted, for arriving at the finding about the rash
and negligent driving attributed against the petitioner. In that view of
the matter, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below,
2026:KER:14338
are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional powers of this
Court.
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The judgments rendered
by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam, in
C.C.No.45/2007, and the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thodupuzha, in
Crl.A.No.19/2011, convicting the petitioner for the commission of
offences under Sections 279, 338 & 304A IPC and sentencing him under
Sections 338 & 304A IPC, are hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused is
acquitted of the aforesaid offences. His bail bond stands cancelled and
he is set at liberty.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
