Partly allowed

Ambujakshan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/688/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl. R.P. No. 688 of 2003, the High Court of Kerala allowed the revision petition in part, confirming the conviction for rash and negligent driving causing injury but reducing the imprisonment sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of conviction for Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Sentence modified from imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.

Ambujakshan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 688 OF 2003

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.30/1998 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THALASSERY
IN C.C.NO.1385/1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶5

CLASS ,MATTANNUR

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

AMBUJAKSHAN
SON OF NANU,
DRIVER,
KEEZHALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV P.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

BY ADV
C.N.PRABHAKARAN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶13

FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl. R.P. No.688 of 2003

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ==================== Crl. R.P. No.688 of 2003

¶17

===================== Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is preferred challenging the order of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.1385/1995 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur, as modified in Crl.A.No.30/1998 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court- (Adhoc-I), Thalassery.

¶20

According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 22.10.1995 at about 4.45 p.m, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner through the Iritty-Mattannur road and collided with a lorry coming from the opposite direction, due to which seven persons who were passengers in the bus sustained injuries and thus the accused committed the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from Section 134(b) r/w Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶21

The learned Magistrate by judgment dated 06.01.1996, found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences and directing the sentences to run concurrently. The accused was found not guilty for the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and he was acquitted for the said offences.

¶22

Crl. R.P. No.688 of 2003

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

On appeal to the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, as Crl.A.No.30/1998, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment to one month for each of the offences, after observing that the sentence imposed was harsh.

¶25

Since the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had expired, notice was directed to be issued to the revision petitioner from the Registry of this Court. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance. Considering the pendency of this revision from 2003 onwards, the case was taken up for hearing.

¶26

I have heard Sri. C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the entire Trial Court records

¶27

The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had found that, the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of I,P,C. PWs 2, 4 and 7 had specifically deposed that the bus was driven by the accused in over speed. The width of the road and the place of occurrence as revealed from the Mahazar and the deposition of witnesses do indicate the rash and negligent driving of the accused. On a perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 16 it is evident that, the said finding of guilt of the accused is justified and there is no reason to interfere with such concurrent findings of guilt.

¶28

However, as far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, after finding that the three months sentence imposed by the Trial Court was too harsh, the Appellate Court reduced the

¶29

Crl. R.P. No.688 of 2003

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

sentence to one month.

¶32

Taking note of the entire circumstances of the case and also the date of incident, which was on 22.10.1995, I am of the view that, the sentence of imprisonment of even one month is also too harsh. On the other hand, a sentence of fine alone would suffice the case. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed in part, by confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine alone. A fine amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 and an amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 337 would be sufficient and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶33

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part by confirming the finding of guilt of the petitioner in C.C.No.1385/1995 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur, but modifying the sentence imposed to one of fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 279 I.P.C and Section 337 I.P.C.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶36

jka.04.07.23.

Ambujakshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambujakshan 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

Kamarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Pushpa @ Pushpakumary Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Madhu.v.R Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

George Antony Vs State of Kerala

John @ Onachan Vs State of Kerala