Point of Law: Elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize seriousness of a crime committed by offender and to take a lenient view in matter of punishment.

ORDER :

This revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.No.187/2003 upholding the verdict of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta in C.C.No.165/2001, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of the offence under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C.

2. The petitioner, a driver of a private bus, is alleged to have driven the bus by name 'Thirumeni' through the road near Pathanamthitta traffic island at about 9:30 a.m. on 12.04.2001 in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life and caused the death of a person by name Karunakaran by dashing the bus against him from behind while he was walking by the side of the tarred road.

3. On the basis of the final report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner who appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. After the conclusion of the trial, with the examination of 10 prosecution witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and marking 13 documents as Exhibits P1 to P13 and identifying one set of material objects as MO1 series, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of Section 304A I.P.C and Section 279 I.P.C and convicted him thereunder. A sentence of simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304A I.P.C, and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 I.P.C were imposed with the direction that the tenure of the above sentences shall run concurrently. Though the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, the appellate court, as per the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2006 in Crl.A.No.187/2003, declined to interfere, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the petitioner is here with this revision petition contending inter alia that the courts below went wrong in relying on the prosecution evidence and convicting and sentencing the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court, canvassing the point that there is no legally sustainable evidence for warranting a conviction under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. It is argued that the evidence adduced by PW3, an eye witness to the accident, ought to have been discarded by the trial court and the appellate court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also contend that the omission on the part of the investigating agency to cite and examine the police personnel on traffic duty at the traffic island in Pathanamthitta town, has to be taken as a circumstance vitiating trial. I am afraid, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the above regard are beyond the scope of the provisions contained under Sections 397 to 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional power of this Court cannot be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable, it is not possible to reverse the findings in the proceedings of revision. The proposition of law in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which wou