Partly allowed

Radhakrishnan S/O Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1343/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision appeal regarding a motor accident causing death, the High Court upheld the conviction for rash and negligent driving but reduced the sentence under Section 304(A) IPC to six months from one year, citing the appellant's age and the delay in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 304(A) IPC reduced by six months; other sentences confirmed; sentences to run concurrently.

Radhakrishnan S/O Krishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1343 OF 2005

¶6

CC 154/1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NEDUMKANDAM CRA 59/2004 OF SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED :

¶8

RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, KALARIKKAL VEEDU, VAYALARNAGAR BHAGOM, PAZHAYA COCHERA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.JOHNSON VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

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

¶12

BY SRI.K.A.NAUSHAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶14

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1343 OF 2005

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.1343 of 2005

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.154 of 1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appeal before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, as Crl.A.No.59 of 2004 was allowed in part by setting aside the conviction under Section 337 but confirming the conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. It is in the above circumstances that this criminal revision petition has been preferred.

¶21

In an accident that occurred on 02.08.1997, two persons were injured. Both the injured were travelling on a bike bearing Registration No.KL-6/9871 along the Pulianmala-Vandanmedu road. The driver of the bike succumbed to his injuries while the pillion rider escaped. The motor bike collided with a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-A/6341 driven by the revision petitioner and hence he was arrayed as an accused alleging the commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.

¶22

Prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P14 apart from MOS 1 to 6. After analysing the evidence adduced, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of all the offences alleged. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple

¶23

¶24

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1343 OF 2005

¶25

imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, apart from imprisonment for six months under Section 338 of IPC and imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶26

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal as Crl.A.No.59 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. By judgment dated 15.04.200, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 337 of IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC was confirmed.

¶27

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution allegation even if accepted in toto would not make out any of the offences alleged. It was further contended that the evidence of PW1, though declared as hostile had clearly mentioned that the bike driven by the deceased had overtaken another jeep and was being driven at high speed and in a negligent manner resulting in the accident. According to the learned counsel, except for PW2, no other witnesses had spoken in tune with the prosecution case and therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been accorded to the revision petitioner. It was further submitted in the alternative that considering the long lapse of time, a lenient view ought to be adopted, atleast in the matter of sentence.

¶28

Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other

¶29

¶30

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1343 OF 2005

¶31

hand, submitted that the prosecution case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently found that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged. It was further submitted that in the limited jurisdiction exercised by this Court as a revisional court, the concurrent findings of fact ought not to be interfered with and that the nature of offences committed by the petitioner do not deserve any leniency to be shown.

¶32

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶33

The accident is alleged to have occurred on 02.08.1997, at

¶34

10.45 a.m. The revision petitioner was driving the jeep bearing Registration No. KL-A/6341 along the Pulianmala-Vandanmedu road. The road is sloping in the north south direction and the revision petitioner was driving downwards the slope, while the deceased was driving the motor bike bearing Registration No.KL-6/9871 uphill.

¶35

PW1 was a passenger inside the jeep driven by the accused. He was declared hostile, since, during deposition, he denied the rash and negligent driving of the accused. However, PW2 who was the pillion rider of the deceased specifically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. In his evidence, he stated that the accused was coming down the hill, through the area for the opposite traffic. This statement was not even challenged in the cross examination, clearly indicating the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

¶36

In this context, it is worthwhile to bear in mind that the

¶37

¶38

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1343 OF 2005

¶39

concurrent findings of fact by both the courts regarding the rashness and negligence of the accused cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction, unless the said finding is perverse. On a perusal of the evidence adduced in the case, I do not find any perversity warranting an interference with judgment of the Appellate Court regarding the rashness and negligence of the accused.

¶40

In the above circumstances, the finding of guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC are confirmed.

¶41

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is justified in seeking leniency since the offence admittedly was committed 26 years ago. The revision petitioner is obviously more than 60 years in age.

¶42

Taking into consideration the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed for the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC can be confirmed while the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304(A) IPC can be reduced to six months' simple imprisonment. Ordered accordingly. The sentences shall run concurrently.

¶43

The criminal revision petition is allowed in part as above.

¶44

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

RKM

Radhakrishnan S/O Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan S/O Krishnan Nair 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

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kuldeep Maruthi Gaikwad Vs State of Kerala

Usha Devi Vs State of Kerala

Safir P Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

SANTHOSH,C.NO.3523,C.PRISON,VIYYUR Vs State of Kerala

Sahad A.K Vs State of Kerala