Partly allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/378/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant for rash driving and causing hurt. While the lower courts charged him under Section 338 IPC, the appellant was acquitted of that offence. The court substituted the original sentence with a monetary fine and default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to total fine of Rs.1,500 with imprisonment in default of one month and fifteen days respectively.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 378 of 2003 ( )

¶6

CRA.20/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL),KOTTAYAM ST.2390/1997 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SURESH, S/O.KESAVAN, MANJOOPARAMBILVEEDU CHINGAVANAM, NATTAKOM VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

das

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.378 of 2003

¶18

========================= Dated this the day of September, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Secs.279 and 337 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo S.I for six months each for the two offences. Though he was charged for the offence under Sec.338 of IPC, he was acquitted of that offence.

¶21

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the identity as the driver of the autorickshaw, which was stated to have knocked down to the complainant, was not proved in this case. But the two courts below analysed the evidence and found that the prosecution could prove that it was the petitioner who drove the vehicle and caused injury to the complainant and that the accident occurred due to the rash and

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.378/ 2003

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

negligent act of the petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel now submits that the incident took place in the year 1994 and the petitioner has suffered much. The petitioner is only a driver of a goods autorickshaw; he is the only breadwinner of his family. Hence, the sentence may be avoided, learned counsel submits.

¶26

In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of as stated below:

¶27

The conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC and in default of the same, he will undergo S.I for one month. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC and in default of the same, he will undergo S.I for fifteen days.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶30

das

¶31

// True copy //

¶32

PA to Judge

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat Vs T.a.Ismail

Suresh Vs Sahadevan

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Abraham @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Joy S/O.Mathai Vs State of Kerala

M.Nirmal Das Vs State of Kerala