The court may extend the benefits of probation for first-time offenders when the offence is not grave, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

ORDER :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

This revision petition has been directed against the judgment in Crl.A No.102/2006 dated 14.11.2007 on the files of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikara (for short 'the appellate court') as well as the judgment in C.C.No.7/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad (for short 'the trial court') dated 20.2.2006.

2. The petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the MV Act).

3. The case arose out of a private complaint filed by PW1. Her son Abdul Shukoor @ Biju died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.8.1997 at about 7.15 pm. The allegation in the compliant is that while PW1 and Abdul Shukoor were walking through the eastern side of the NH-47 road near Thamalackal Junction, an Ambassador car bearing No.KL-2B/6318, driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit against Abdul Shukoor, who sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries while he was undergoing treatment at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. After trial, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(a) of the MV Act and convicted him for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) as compensation, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC . No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC . The accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 134(a) of the MV Act. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the appellate court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC . He was further sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 134(a) of the MV Act. The order granting compensation was set aside. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. E.C. Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the trial court as well as the appellate court went wrong in convicting the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that identification of the petitioner as well as the identification of the vehicle involved in the incident has not been properly proved. The learned counsel also submitted that this is a fit case where the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Prosecutor submitted that both the courts, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the petitioner drove the car rashly and negligently and hit against the deceased. The learned Prosecutor submitted that this Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence.

7. PW1 is the mother