The High Court of Kerala confirmed the petitioner's conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death but modified the sentence for the offence, reducing it from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment.
Sentence modified from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4 of 2000(P)
---------------------------CRA.159/93 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI C.C.271/90 OF CJM, MANJERI
REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------P.SREEDHARAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, POOVAKATTIL HOUSE, KAVUNGIKKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI, J
Crl.R.P.4/2000
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The accused in C.C.No.271/1990 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, who was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, is the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition. The trial Court convicted him for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.4/2000
2
The lorry was proceeding from west to east. When it reached near a Mosque at Pookottur, it hit against Kunnathu Moideen, who was trudging on the northern side of the road pushing a bicycle. The vehicle ran over the deceased. Driver did not stop the vehicle after the incident. Later, the vehicle was taken into custody and as evidenced by Ext.P8, G.V.R, the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. That the vehicle had proceeded from west to east and had hit the bicycle from the rear, was spoken to by PWs1 and 2, eye witnesses. Ext.P3 scene mahazar was proved through PW4 and the seizure of the vehicle, as per Ext.P4, was proved by PW5. PW10, the Investigating Officer, spoke about the material aspects of the investigation. That the vehicle did not suffer from any mechanical defect at the time of the accident, was spoken to by PW9, the motor vehicle Inspector. Ext.P8 goods vehicle record was proved by PW10. While being examined under Section 313, though the accused had denied the other aspects put to him, he accepted that he was the driver of the
3
Crl.R.P.4/2000
vehicle at the time of the accident. It is on the basis of the above, that the trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused.
Crl.R.P.4/2000
4
place when the vehicle had hit the bicycle on the rear, are all factors which have been proved by the prosecution and which will therefore, support the finding that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is not a matter of insignificance that the driver did not stop the vehicle after the impact.
5
Crl.R.P.4/2000
learned Public Prosecutor also in this regard. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence of six months' RI would suffice for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
Subject to the above, Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed.
V.GIRI, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for rash and negligent driving causing death is sustainable.
Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC is excessive.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Sreedharan
The State of Kerala
V. Gir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
