Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14688
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J
HUZAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 1148/2018
K.SHAJ
The court confirmed the conviction for rash driving resulting in grievous injuries, modifying the sentence to reflect leniency while ensuring justice for the victim.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 338 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 - Conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in grievous injuries - Accused drove without a license, causing an accident that led to the amputation of the victim's leg - The trial court's conviction was upheld by the appellate court, confirming the findings based on evidence. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
(B) Evidence - Reappreciation - High Court does not typically re-evaluate evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice - The evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction. (Paras 4, 10)
(C) Sentencing - The court modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC to three months each, while maintaining the conviction and imposing fines and compensation. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused, without a driving license, drove a car recklessly, crashing into a grocery shop and injuring the complainant, who subsequently had to undergo leg amputation.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was confirmed based on the evidence of witnesses and medical records supporting the grievous injuries sustained by the victim.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence supported the conviction, and the sentence was modified to reflect leniency while ensuring justice for the victim.
Result: Revision petition allowed in part; conviction upheld, sentence modified.
ORDER
In this revision, the revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act .
2. Prosecution case is that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm. the accused, who was not holding a driving license, drove the car bearing registration No.KL04/R-1055 in a rash and negligent manner through Ayiramthengu Public Road, so as to endanger human life and rammed into the grocery shop of PW6 and caused grievous injuries to PW2 who was shopping in the said shop. Pursuant to Ext.P2 FI statement laid by PW2, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) , 3(1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act .
3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. From the judgment of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.98/2017 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the appellate court dismissed the said appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence from which this revision has been filed.
4. It is a well settled principle that ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
5. Now let us have a look at the prosecution evidence so as to find out whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court.
6. PW2, Jackson is the defacto complainant and the injured. He testified that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm. when he along with PW3 and PW4 had reached at the grocery shop of PW6 Balan situated near to the Ayiramthengu fishing harbour for purchasing provisions, the car driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner crashed into the said shop and hit him causing grievous injuries on his right leg. He was taken to the hospital and undergone treatment and his right leg, above the knee, had to be amputated. Ext.P2 is the first information statement given by him.
7. PW3 and PW4 have testified that they have witnessed the incident; that on 9.2.2010 at around 3 pm, while PW2 was purchasing goods from the grocery shop of PW6 Balan, a Maruti Alto Car driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner rammed into the said shop and hit PW2 causing grievous injuries to him. According to PW3 and PW4, by seeing the uncontrollable way in which the car was coming, though they could move away, PW2 could not do so; that PW2 was sandwiched between the wall and the car and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg; that PW2 was taken to the hospital. Both PW3 and PW4 have further testified that the right leg of PW2 had to be amputated due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
8. PW6, Balan, who is the owner of the shop, has also testified in tune with the version of PWs 2 to 4. He, too, testified that the Maruti Car bearing registration No.KL-04/R 1055 crashed into his shop and caused serious injuries to PW2 Jackson, who was shopping there at that time. He has also testified that in the accident, the coin box and the glass box of his shop sustained damages. He, too, testified that the accident occurred due to the over speed, rashness and negligence of the accused.
9. Ext.P6 wound certificate and Ext.P7 discharge summary coupled with the version of doctors who were examined as PW8 to PW10 would show that due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the right leg of PW2 had to be amputated. The medical records and the evidence
