Partly allowed

Sayanakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1144/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act for failing to secure medical aid after an accident. The court set aside the jail sentence, imposed a fine instead, and reduced the disqualification period from six months to three months.

What did the court decide?

Jail sentence set aside; fine of Rs.500 imposed; disqualification reduced to three months under Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Sayanakumar Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1144 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 68/2000 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM DATED 08-10-2002

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 435/1996 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 04-05-2000

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-

¶9

SAYANAKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVA PANICKER, PANNIKKAMUPPARA VEEDU, CHITTUVETTA MURI, THOLIKKODU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶12

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

¶13

BY SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rkj

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.1144 of 2004

¶19

================================ Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.435 of 1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's CourtII, Kottarakkara.

¶22

He faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 9.30 a.m. on 08.12.1995, he drove the mini bus No.KL-01 1871 rashly and negligently, so as to endanger to human life, along the ThiruvananthapuramShencottah public road, the said bus hit down a pedestrian due to the said rashness and negligence, and the pedestrian succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in the accident within no time. The prosecution also alleged that the accused did not care to secure necessary medical aid to the victim, and when he tried to escape, he was caught by the people of the locality and handed over to the police. After investigation, the final report was submitted against him under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC, and also under Section 187 read with Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act).

¶23

The accused pleaded not guilty, when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1144 of 2004

¶25

¶26

by the trial court. On trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of all the offences alleged against him.

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2000, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kollam with Crl.Appeal No.68 of 2000. In appeal, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam found the accused not guilty under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under the two Sections were set aside in appeal. However, the conviction and the jail sentence under Section 187 of the MV Act read with Section 134(a) of the MV Act was confirmed by the appellate court. In addition to the sentence, the trial court had also disqualified the accused from driving any sort of vehicle for a period of one year, under Section 20 of the MV Act. But in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the said period of disqualification to six months. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence under Section 187 of the MV Act, including the orders disqualifying him from driving any sort of motor vehicle for six months.

¶28

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the ocular evidence given by the witnesses who witnessed the accident, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the revision petitioner under Section 187 of

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1144 of 2004

¶30

¶31

the MV Act. PW1 and PW2 have given definite evidence that after hitting down the pedestrian, the accused moved forward for a short distance without stopping the vehicle immediately, and he stopped it at a distance. When he tried to run off and escape, he was caught by the people, and he was later handed over to the police. This particular evidence given by PW1 and PW2 stands not discredited in cross-examination. Thus, it stands well proved by PW1 and PW2 that the accused had in fact failed to provide the necessary medical aid to the victim who sustained injuries at his hands. This is a clear violation of Section 134(a) of the MV Act, and it is punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act.

¶32

The sentence prescribed under Section 187 of the MV Act, for violation of Section 134(a) of the MV Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to Rs.500/-. Section 20 of the MV Act provides that in a case of violation of Section 134(a) of the MV Act, and when the accused is punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act, the convicting Court shall disqualify the accused from driving any particular class or description of specified vehicle for a period of not less than one month. In this case, the trial court disqualified the accused for one year, but the said period was reduced to six months in appeal. On a consideration of the various aspects including the age of the accused and also the long lapse of years since the date of accident, I feel it

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.1144 of 2004

¶34

¶35

appropriate to reduce the period of disqualification further to three months.

¶36

The defence possible for an accused facing charge under Section 134(a) of the MV Act is that due to public fury at the place of accident, or due to some unavoidable circumstances, or some other reasons beyond his control, he could not take reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person. In this case, there is nothing to show that the accused was prevented by public fury from providing medical aid. The appellate court found the accused not guilty on the ground that the unfortunate accident occurred probably, when the victim carelessly crossed the road. Anyway, the accused should have stopped the vehicle immediately, and given necessary medical aid to the victim. An instance of public fury as such, constituting a defence to a prosecution under Section 134(a) of the MV Act is not clearly brought out. Anyway,

¶37

in the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that the maximum fine sentence under Section 187 of the MV Act will be the adequate sentence in this case besides disqualification for three months.

¶38

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 187 of the MV Act read with Section 134(a) of the MV Act in C.C.No.435 of 1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottarakkara is confirmed, and the

¶39

Crl.R.P.No.1144 of 2004

¶40

revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the sentence and also the disqualification made by the court below under Section 20 of the MV Act will stand modified as follows;

¶41

a) The jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 187 of the MV Act read with Section 134(a) of the MV Act will stand set aside.

¶42

b) In lieu of modification as above, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 187 read with Section 134(a) of the MV Act.

¶43

c) The order of the trial court disqualifying the revision petitioner from driving any vehicle, modified in appeal by the appellate court, will stand further reduced to a period of three months under Section 20 of the MV Act. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court to remit the amount of fine voluntarily, and he shall also surrender his driving license before the Court for making necessary entries within three weeks from this date, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and also the disqualification of license.

¶44

Sd/rkj P.UBAID, JUDGE

Sayanakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayanakumar 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

Honey @ Hemanth Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Ben N Babu Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Phalgunan Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala