IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 327 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2020 IN CRA NO.11 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT – II, MAVELIKARA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2018 IN CC NO.1011 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD REVISION PETITIONER(APPELLANT/ACCUSED):

BAIJU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN, KARUKAYIL VEETTIL, PALLIPPAD PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.VI, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKE MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, HARIPAD-690514 BY ADVS.

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)

RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT/STATE):

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682016 SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

30.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER The accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC in connection with a motor vehicle accident, which led to the death of one of the injured. She succumbed to the injury on the same day and she was the pillion rider of a motor cycle driven by her husband. Both the trial court and the first appellate court found that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The main challenge against the concurrent judgment of conviction is that the identity of the accused was not properly proved. It is, inter alia, contended that two witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile to the prosecution. But, PW2 had identified the accused as the person who drove the vehicle at the time of alleged incident. The accident spot is located in the scene mahazar. PW13 has given oral evidence pertaining to the place wherein the alleged incident had happened, based on which both the courts below found that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of IPC. There is also concurrent finding by both the courts below regarding the identity of the accused proved through PW2. He was arrested by the police without any delay. No challenge was raised pertaining to the identity of the accused to PW13, the investigating officer. As such, there is no merits in the contention raised by the revision petitioner. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact regarding the identity of the accused and the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of IPC. It is also revealed that the vehicle was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, which has resulted in the alleged incident. As such, the judgment of conviction deserves no interference.

2. Regarding the sentence awarded by the trial court stood modified by the first appellate court pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a lenient view should be taken as he is having a minor girl child. It is also brought to the notice of this court that she is 40% disabled (intellectually disabled). A photocopy of certificate issued by Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, also handed over to this court at the time of argument. As such, it is a case wherein a liberal view can be taken by reducing and modifying the substantive sentence to three months and a fine amount of Rs. 30,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. The sentence awarded for the offence under Sections 337 and 279 of IPC, requires no interference. But there will be a direction to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to PW3, the husband of the victim. The fine amount imposed for other offences shall be adjusted towards the cost incurred by the State Government in prosecuting the case. The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed in part accordingly by modifying the sentence as above.