Allowed

T.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/338/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against a conviction for driving offences. The revision bench set aside the original sentences of rigorous and simple imprisonment, directing the accused to pay fines instead, while confirming his conviction.

What did the court decide?

Original sentence of imprisonment set aside; convicted accused directed to pay fines of Rs.1,000 (Section 279 IPC), Rs.500 (Section 337 IPC) and Rs.1,000 (Section 338 IPC) with simple imprisonment in

T.Suresh 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 338 of 2012 (B)

¶6

.NO./ IN CRA.442/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY .NO./ IN STC.948/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT.,THALASSERY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

T.SURESH, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN,KOOVERI KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶10

SRI.M.X.ANTONY LIJO

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

LSN

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

---------------------------------------------------Cr.RP No.338 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of February 2012

¶19

Order

¶20

The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 337 IPC. He was also prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 read with S.181 of the M.V.Act. He was found guilty and was therefore convicted and sentenced as follows :

¶21

“Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC, he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable u/s 338 IPC. Though he is found guilty of the offence u/s 337 IPC, considring the fact that he is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 338 IPC, I am not imposing separate sentence for the offence punishable u/s 337 IPC. He also has to pay a fine of Rs.250/- in default to

¶22

Crl.RP 338/12

¶23

¶24

undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days for the offence punishable u/s 3 r/w 181 of MV Act. However, the sentence imposed u/s 279 and 338 IPC shall run concurrently and the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under S.3 r/w 181 of MV Act will run separately.

¶25

The accused is entitled to get the benefit u/s 428 for the period of detention, if any, already udergone by him during the course of the trial. The driving licence of the accused is suspended for a period of 6 (six) months with effect from 29.6.2005.”

¶26

In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed

¶27

the conviction and sentence u/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence u/s 3 r/w 181 of MV Act.

¶28

The incident occurred on 29.06.2005 at 2.15 pm. The accused is said to have been driving a jeep bearing No.KL-13/K-3899 and it collided with an

¶29

Crl.RP 338/12 3

¶30

autorickshaw driven by PW2 carrying PWs1 and 2 which came from the opposite direction and as a result of the collision, PWs 1 and 3 sustained grievous hurt and PW2 sustained simple hurt. The injured were hospitalised. A crime was registered and after investigation, charge was laid before court.

¶31

The trial court took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read over to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. After close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC. He denied all incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and submitted that he was not driving the jeep. However, he chose to adduce no evidence.

¶32

The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused and

¶33

Crl.RP 338/12 4

¶34

accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned. The lower appellate court, though confirmed the conviction and sentence u/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC, set aside the conviction and sentence u/s 3 r/w 181 of MV Act.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The learned counsel also pointed out that there is nothing to show that the jeep was coming at an excessive speed and that there had been rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. 7. Both the courts below have chosen to acept the version of PWs 1 and 3, who were the passengers in the auto rickshaw and also PW2, who was the driver of the autorickshaw. According to PWs 1 and 3, they hired the autorickshaw driven by PW2 on the date of incident for going to their house. When the auto rickshaw reached the place of incident, the jeep coming on the wrong side of the road rammed into the autorickshaw and due to the impact of the collision, the autorickshaw was pushed towards the

¶36

Crl.RP 338/12 5

¶37

rear side and PW1 sustained fracture of bone and head injury. She would categorically say that the jeep was on the wrong side of the road.

¶38

PW2, who is the driver of the autorickshaw has deposed that the jeep came from the opposite direction, tread into the wrong side of the road and collided with his autorickshaw and the incident occurred due to the carelessness on the part of the accused, who was driving the jeep. He says that he too sustained injuries in the accident.

¶39

The court below has analysed the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in considerable detail and come to the conclusion that their evidence are acceptable. The courts below have also referred to the scene mahazar and come to the conclusion that the jeep was on the wrong side of the road. The finding of the court below that the incident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, is based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, no interference is called for with the findings of the courts

¶40

¶41

Crl.RP 338/12

¶42

below under the revisional jurisdiction.

¶43

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that a lenient view may be taken in the matter since there is no acceptable evidence regarding the actual negligence on the part of the accused and it is pointed out that the imposition of fine will meet the interest of justice.

¶44

The fact remains that both the courts below have found that the jeep was on the wrong side of the road. However, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and also the age of the accused, it is felt that some leniency can be shown to him.

¶45

In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 279, 337 and 338, the sentence imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under S.279 of IPC and in default, to undergo simple

¶46

Crl.RP 338/12 7

¶47

imprisonment for two months, Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶48

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶50

sta

¶51

Crl.RP 338/12 8

T.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Suresh 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

P.M.Moideen Vs E.K.Ebrahim

Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala

Kunhiraman Vs Mammu

Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

Santha Vs State of Kerala

Benny @ Agusthy Thomas Vs M.K. Varghese