Partly allowed

N.Veluswamy v. State

Kerala HC3 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/865/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused driver under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC for a fatal road accident. However, recognizing the 18-year lapse since the incident and the accused's age, the Court reduced the imprisonment terms while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to one month simple imprisonment for Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and three months rigorous imprisonment for Section 304A IPC.

N.Veluswamy Vs State — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 865 of 2007

¶6

IN CRA 282/2005 of D.C. & SESSIONS & MACT,KASARAGOD

¶7

IN CC 430/2001 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD DATED 07-10-2005

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

N. VELUSWAMY, S/O.NATESAN, REDDY STREET, SILVAMPETTY,, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT::

¶12

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

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

- - - - Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 03^rd day of August, 2018

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal code in C.C. No. 430 of 2001 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod. He faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 9.30 p.m. on 03.08.2000, he drove the tanker lorry No. AP 10T 7154 rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life, along the Kannur - Mangalore National Highway, the said tanker lorry hit on the mini lorry No. KL 7G-3085 at Arieal due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, and in the said accident, the two passengers in the mini lorry sustained injuries, and the driver of the mini lorry sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed on the spot. The police registered the crime on the complaint made by one of the injured, and submitted final report in court after

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶24

-2-

¶25

investigation.

¶26

The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents in the trial court.

¶27

The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that the accident, in fact, occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased, who was the driver of the mini lorry. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶28

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial

¶29

court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-

¶30

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶31

-3-

¶32

under Section 338 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/under Section 304A IPC.

¶33

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2001, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kasargod, with Crl.A. No. 282 of 2005. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence under Section 279 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months, the fine sentence under Section 337 IPC was maintained, the jail sentence under Section 338 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months, and the sentence under Section 304A IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The fine sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC was maintained. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

¶34

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶35

-4-

¶36

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the revision petitioner. Of the 12 witnesses examined in the trial court, PW4 and PW5 are the material witnesses. They were passengers in the mini lorry driven by the deceased. PW2 and PW3 did not support the prosecution. PW1 is the Sub Inspector who registered the crime. He had reached the scene of accident immediately on getting information, but the accused could be arrested only on 09.08.2000 by the Sub Inspector, who investigated the case. PW4 and PW5 are definite and consistent in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence, and also due to the over speed on the part of the accused, and both the witnesses identified the accused as the driver of the tanker lorry that hit on the mini lorry driven by the accused. Of course, it is true that PW4 and PW5 were the employees of the deceased, but that alone cannot be a

¶37

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶38

-5-

¶39

reason to reject their evidence or to disbelieve them, if their evidence is otherwise believable and acceptable.

¶40

The only defence projected by the accused during trial is that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. The identity of the driver of the tanker lorry was not challenged in defence by the accused. Though questions were asked to the witnesses whether the accident was caused by the deceased driver of the mini lorry, both the witnesses affirmed in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry. The scene mahazar in this case shows that the spot of accident is at the centre of the road. The width of the road at the palce of accident is 7 metres. There is nothing to show that the mini lorry was driven by the deceased in over speed or along the wrong side. I find that the accused was rightly found guilty and convicted by the trial court.

¶41

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶42

-6-

¶43

Now the question of sentence. Though the trial court imposed harsh sentence, or the maximum under Section 304A IPC, the sentence was reduced in appeal by the appellate court. The accident occurred in August, 2000. 18 years have elapsed since the date of incident. The accused was at his prime age of 22 years at the time of incident. No other convicton of similar nature is seen reported against the petitioner. On a consideration of the various aspects, including the long lapse of years, I find that the minimum sentence under Section 304 IPC will be the adequate sentence in this case. The other sentences also can be modified accordingly.

¶44

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner in C.C. No. 430 of 2001 of the court below is confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the sentence imposed by the court below will stand modified as follows:

¶45

Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2007

¶46

-7-

¶47

(a) The jail sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC will stand reduced to simple imprisonment for one month each.

¶48

(b) The jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 304A IPC will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶49

(c) The fine sentence imposed by the court below under the four Sections is maintained, with the default sentence thereon.

¶50

The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to serve out the modified sentence, and to make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the modified sentence, and to realize the fine amount, or to enforce the default sentence.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

ds 04.08.2018

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

N.Veluswamy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Veluswamy v. State

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

Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Jaijo Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Charly George Vs the National Small Industries Corpn.Ltd