Partly allowed

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2199/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged a conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC for a traffic accident. The Court rejected the challenge to the conviction, finding the identification and evidence of rash driving sufficient. However, it allowed a plea of mercy and modified the sentence for Section 304A to six months, directing all sentences to run concurrently.

What did the court decide?

Reduced sentence for Section 304A IPC to six months; directed all sentences to be undergone concurrently.

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2199 of 2004 (D)

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.14/1998 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY IN CC.NO.78/1995 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

ASHOKAN, S/O. SREEKANDAN, KANHIRODE AMSOM, THALAMUNDA DESOM, THALASSERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY

¶14

HEARD ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

¶15

FOLLOWING:

¶16

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶17

==================================

¶18

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 3^rd day of October 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The accused in C.C.No. 78 of 1995 before the

¶21

Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and for six months imprisonment under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to be undergone consecutively. The licence of

¶22

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶23

# 2#

¶24

the accused was suspended for a period of two years. In Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, the Court of Session, Thalassery confirmed both the conviction and the sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶25

The petitioner raises two contentions. The

¶26

first is regarding the identity of the accused. According to the petitioner, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The other contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle, the accident was not on account of any rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but because of circumstances beyond his control. According to him, the accident occurred because a mini

¶27

lorry suddenly entered into the main road in which the offending vehicle and the vehicle in which the victims

¶28

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶29

# 3#

¶30

were travelling was running in the opposite direction as a result of which the vehicle had to be suddenly turned which resulted in the collision.

¶31

The public prosecutor would point out that

¶32

the petitioner did not seriously dispute his identity as the driver of the bus which caused the accident. He points out that none of the witnesses who identified the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle has been crossexamined on this aspect and at no point of time the petitioner seriously disputed the said fact also. As regards the contention on the lack of evidence to prove rashness and negligence, the public prosecutor would submit that several eye witnesses have categorically stated that the accident occurred only because of the rashness and negligence of the petitioner in driving his vehicle and the petitioner could not discredit their evidence by cross-examination. According to him, the

¶33

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶34

# 4#

¶35

evidence of all the eye witnesses are very convincing enough to enter a finding of guilt by the petitioner.

¶36

I have considered the rival contentions in

¶37

detail. The prosecution case is as follows:-

¶38

On 24-12-1993 at about 17.30 hours when bus

¶39

bearing Registration No. KLN 7718 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner reached Melechovva in Kannur amsom, it hit against bus bearing Registration No. KL 13/7683. Because of the impact one of the passengers of the latter bus, namely one Mr. Abdulrahiman sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Further Cws. 1 and 2 sustained grievous hurt and Cws. 2,3,4,6,7,8 and 9 sustained simple hurt. Thereby the accused committed the offences alleged against him. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 19 and marked Exts. P1 to P17.

¶40

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶41

# 5#

¶42

The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶43

I have gone through the deposition of the

¶44

witnesses and also the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below. PWs 1,2,3,7,8 and 14 completely supported the prosecution case. They deposed that the petitioner while driving his bus suddenly overtook the tempo van bearing Registration No. KRN. 5189, of which PW 14 was the driver, hit against the other bus coming from the opposite direction, causing the accident on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. Despite extensive cross-examination of these witnesses, absolutely nothing was brought out for giving credence to the case of the petitioner that a mini lorry came from a pocket road, as a result of which the petitioner was forced to suddenly turn the vehicle resulting in the accident. On the other hand, the eye witnesses categorically asserted that the petitioner rashly and negligently overtook the tempo van bearing Registration

¶45

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶46

# 6#

¶47

No. KRN. 5189 and hit the bus coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. In fact PW14, driver of the tempo van bearing Registration No. KRN 5189, would give evidence to the fact that the petitioner's bus first hit against the door of the tempo van on the right side. The site plan prepared also completely corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses. The scene of occurrence was on the southern side of the road which was the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. In view of the above evidence, I have absolutely no hesitation to agree with the appreciation of evidence by the courts below.

¶48

As far as the identity of the petitioner as the

¶49

driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, petitioner did not seriously challenge the identification by the eye witnesses while cross-examining them. In fact, even before the appellate court the petitioner did not seriously

¶50

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶51

# 7#

¶52

dispute that fact. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient enough to hold that petitioner has been duly identified as the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶53

In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition so as to enable me to interfere with the conviction entered by the lower courts.

¶54

The counsel for the petitioner pleads mercy

¶55

in the matter of sentence. He submits that he has a large family to maintain and the lower courts have given the harsh sentence of imprisonment even extending to

¶56

one year and directed that the sentence would run consecutively. Petitioner pleads for reduction of the sentence imposed.

¶57

Crl. R.P. NO.2199 of 2004

¶58

# 8#

¶59

Having considered the matter after hearing the public prosecutor also, I am inclined to reduce the sentence for the offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code to six months rigorous imprisonment. The other sentences are confirmed. But, I direct that all the sentences shall be undergone concurrently.

¶60

The Criminal Revision Petition is

¶61

disposed of as above.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

S. SIRI JAGAN (JUDGE)

¶64

kvr/-

¶65

/True copy/

¶66

P.A. to Judge

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K. Hairunnisa Vs T. Nazimudheen

Biju Vs S.I. of Police

Annur Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State

Karthika Vs State of Kerala