Single judge rejected revision petition against conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing mild hurt, upholding findings of contributory negligence and adequacy of punishment.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 444 of 2004 dismissed; conviction and sentence of three months' imprisonment each upheld.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 444 of 2004 ( ) ------------------------------CRA.95/2001 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM CC.64/1998 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. AYYAKUTTY PILLAI, KIZHAKKUNNATHU VEEDU IRAYANKODU, CHERIYAKONNI, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
================== Crl.R.P.No. 444 of 2004
================== Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012 O R D E R
The accused in C.C.No.64/1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 279(3) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.R.P.444/04 - : 2 :-
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, who confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.
Crl.R.P.444/04 - : 3 :-
the car, which was being driven by the petitioner. Ext.P2 mahazar shows that the tarred portion of the road at the place of occurrence is having a width of 5 metres and there is a road margin of 1½ metres on either side of the road. Ext.P2 mahazar describes the place of the accident as on the proper side of PW1 and wrong side of the car driven by the petitioner. These are all sufficient materials to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur insofar as going by the above evidence, the accident could not have occurred, but for the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. As such, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered by the courts below. I am also unable to persuade myself to hold that the punishment of three months' imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code is excessive as well. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
Crl.R.P.444/04 - : 4 :-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision against conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing mild hurt under Sections 279 and 338 IPC merits interference.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Balakrishna Pillai
State Represented by Public Prosecutor
S. Sri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
