The court upheld the conviction for rash driving resulting in death and injuries, emphasizing the application of probation based on the accused's age and health.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been preferred by the accused challenging the judgment in Crl.A.No.25/2013 of Sessions Court, Thalassery by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery in C.C.No.631/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 304(A) IPC .

2. Prosecution case is that on 16.7.2010 at 8.35 am accused drove a bus bearing registration No.KL-13-N-5776 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life through Panoor- Thalassery Public Road and when it reached near Chambad-Makkuni it hit two pedestrians causing injuries to both. Radha who sustained grievous injuries succumbed to the injuries. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 304(A) IPC .

3. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 279 , 337 , 304(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the said offences.

5. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.25/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.

6. It is a well settled position of law that 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 un- reasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the revisional courts may not interfere with decision. (Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda (2018(8) SCC 165).

7. In State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Nam- boodiri reported in AIR (1999 SC 981), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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 Mag- istrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would other-

wise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

8. Bearing in mind the above settled principle, we can have a look at the prosecution evidence. PW1, who laid Ext.P1 first information statement has categorically testified that he is an eye witness to the incident; that on 16.7.2010 at 8.30 am. while he was on his way to purchase fish, he witnessed the incident; According to him, the bus driven by the accused hit victim Radha and thereafter hit PW2 Ramakrishnan. According to him, the incident occurred when the accused tried to overtake another bus which had been stopped near the place of incident. PW1 has categorically testified that it was the accused who was driving the bus at the time of the incident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW1 has further testified that the victim Radha succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

9. PW2 is an injured in the said accident. According to him the bus driven by the accused hit him; that he sustained in- juries in the incident. According to him, the incident occurred while the accused tried to overtake another bus which had been stopped there to take passengers. PW7 testified that on 16.7.2010 while she was travelling in a bus, the said bus was involved in an accident and she suffered injuries in the said accident. But the prosecution did not produce any medical records to prove that PW7 sustained any injury in the accident.

10. The evidence tendered by PW11 doctor who con-

ducted autopsy examination on the body of the victim Radha cou- pled with Ext.P11 postmortem certificate would show that the victim Radha died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road accident. Ext.P3 wound certificate and