Dismissed

Gangadharan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/2364/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction of an KSRTC driver for rash and negligent driving causing one death and injuries under various IPC sections. While upholding the guilt, the court reduced the nature of the term for two sections from rigorous to simple imprisonment due to the accused’s advanced age and the time elapsed since the 1998 accident, maintaining concurrent sentences.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from rigorous to simple imprisonment for three months under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC.

Gangadharan Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2364 of 2003 (B)

¶6

CRA 177/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI DATED 05-08-2003 CC 398/1998 of J.M.F.C., MALAPPURAM DATED 14.8.2001

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-

¶8

GANGADHARAN, S/O.ETHAPPAN PANICKER, RAROTH, VELIMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE :-

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION – THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

P.UBAID, J.

¶15

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶16

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of December 2017

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) IPC in C.C.No.398/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. He was a driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the KSRTC'). The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 a.m. on 13.6.1998, the accused drove the KSRTC bus No.KL-15/2011 in extreme rashness and negligence along the Thrissur-Kozhikode National Highway, at Palathara near Kottakkal, as a result of which, the bus smashed the car No.KL-5/C-7655, which came from the opposite side, resulting a very major accident, and in the said accident, the driver of the car died and some passengers sustained simple and grievous injuries. One of the passengers gave the F.I.Statement to the police, on the basis of which, the crime was registered. After investigation, the police submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty, when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P20 documents in the trial court. The MO1 series properties were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the accident in fact occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the car driver. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶22

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months under Section 304(A) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 337 and 279 IPC, by judgment dated 14.8.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.A.No.177/ 2001. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence awarded under Section 304(A) IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, and the other sentences were maintained. Thus, practically, the accused will have to

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

undergo jail sentence for a total period of six months in view of the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Now the accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

¶26

On a perusal of the entire materials, and on hearing both sides, I find that the courts below convicted the accused concurrently on the basis of the clear evidence given by the material witnesses examined as PW1 to PW3. PW4 was the Depot Inspector of the KSRTC, Malappuram Depot, and his evidence is that the accused in this case was the driver of the bus No.KL-15/2011 on the date of the accident. In fact the accused has no dispute regarding the identity of the bus driver. The material question is whether the alleged accident was caused by him, by his rashness and negligence.

¶27

PW1 is the first informant. He was a Judge at that time in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service, and he was travelling in the car with his family. PW2 and PW3 are the independent witnesses, who witnessed the accident. Of course, it is true that the family members of PW1 were not examined during trial. This will not in any manner affect the prosecution case, when the independent witnesses have fully supported the prosecution,

¶28

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶29

-: 4 :-

¶30

and fully corroborated PW1 on materials aspects.

¶31

PW1 is definite in evidence that the accident in this

¶32

case occurred only because the KSRTC driver rashly and negligently drove the bus, and unmindful of the consequences of such rashness and negligence, overtook a running lorry dangerously. It has come out in evidence that the car, proceeding along the correct side from north to south, was dragged into the western side due to the force of the hit made by the KSRTC bus. The driver of the car sustained very fatal injuries, to which he succumbed within no time, and the passengers including the daughter of PW1 sustained serious injuries. These aspects are proved by the evidence of the material witnesses, and also the doctors who examined the injured at the hospital, and issued the wound certificates. The fact of death of the driver of the car is not in dispute. The cause of his death is also not disputed.

¶33

PW2 and PW3 are definite and consistent that they had witnessed the accident in this case, and they are definite that the accident occurred due to the extreme rashness and negligence on the part of the KSRTC driver. When examined in chief, PW2 even stated that it appeared to him that the KSRTC

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶35

-: 5 :-

¶36

driver caused the accident intentionally. Of course, what he actually meant is that the KSRTC driver caused the accident, or he carelessly and rashly overtook the running lorry with the full knowledge of consequence that such an act will definitely cause a major accident, or that his bus would definitely hit on the car. This particular evidence given by PW2 stands not effectively challenged and discredited. PW3 is also definite that the accident occurred only because the KSRTC driver rashly and dangerously overtook a running lorry. I find that on factual aspects, the prosecution case stands well proved by the evidence of PW1 to PW3. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of material witnesses, or to reject their evidence on facts. There is absolutely no illegality, or irregularity for interference in revision by this Court.

¶37

Now the question of sentence. Though the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months under Section 304(A) IPC, the appellate court graciously reduced it to imprisonment for six months. Now the question is whether there is any scope for a further reduction by this Court in revision. It is submitted that the revision petitioner retired from service long back, and now he is aged more than 75

¶38

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶39

-: 6 :-

¶40

years. The appellate court has already showed leniency in the matter of sentence, and the appeal was disposed of in August, 2003. Now we are in 2017. The unfortunate accident occurred in 1998. Thus, it is 19 years since the date of accident, and the revision petitioner has been facing the trauma of prosecution for this long period of 19 years. I feel that, in the present circumstances, on a consideration of all the relevant aspects, including the age and physical infirmities of the accused, simple imprisonment for three months will be reasonable and adequate under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC. The sentence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is already imprisonment for three months. Any way, I am inclined to alter the nature of the sentence to simple imprisonment, on a consideration of the age and physical condition of the accused.

¶41

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC in C.C.No.398/1998, confirmed in Crl.A.No.177/2001 by the Court of Session, will stand confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the sentence imposed by the court below under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC will stand modified, altered and reduced to simple imprisonment for three

¶42

Crl.R.P. No.2364 of 2003

¶43

months. The sentence imposed under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is maintained, but the nature is altered to simple imprisonment. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within one month from this date to serve out the sentence, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence. The sentences will run concurrently.

¶44

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

P.A. To Judge

¶47

Jvt/13.12.2017

Gangadharan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadharan v. the 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

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Shaji C.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Scaria Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Pandiyamma Vs State of Kerala