Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47209
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SOMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/4263/2006
P.V.ANOOP, SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ. P.P.
The court applied legal principles allowing for sentence modification based on the health condition of the accused, while upholding the conviction for negligent driving under IPC provisions.
Headnote:
Criminal - Negligent Driving - IPC Sections [279, 337, 338, 304A] - The court confirmed the conviction under IPC for negligent driving leading to death and injuries, imposing fines instead of imprisonment due to the accused's health conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was tried and convicted for driving a bus negligently, causing an accident that resulted in a death and injuries. The trial and appellate courts found sufficient evidence linking his actions to the offences under IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court's conviction for negligent driving was upheld based on eyewitness accounts that confirmed the rashness of the accused's driving, justifying the imposition of fines rather than imprisonment due to the accused's health condition.
Issues: Whether the conviction for negligent driving could be altered considering the accused's health condition, and whether the sentences imposed by earlier courts were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts concluded that health conditions of the accused warranted a modification of the punishment from imprisonment to fines, while confirming the findings of negligence leading to the conviction.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to fines due to the accused's bedridden state and loss of eyesight.
No 2025 case laws on negligence under Section 304A of the IPC are referenced, cited, or discussed in the provided legal document. (!) (!) (!) (!) The document addresses a conviction under Section 304A IPC for causing death by rash and negligent act, specifically negligent driving leading to fatalities and injuries, upheld based on eyewitness testimony without re-appreciation of evidence in revision proceedings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Principles applied include establishing negligence through direct evidence of rash driving, such as speeding and failure to control the vehicle, resulting in multiple collisions. (!) (!) (!) Courts confirmed the applicability of Section 304A where death is caused by negligence without intent, distinguishing it from more culpable homicide provisions. (!) (!) Sentencing discretion allows modification from imprisonment to fines, considering the accused's age, health (bedridden state and blindness), and compensation to victims under Cr.P.C. Section 357(1). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
O R D E R
This Crl.R.P has been directed against the judgment dated 12/01/2006 in Crl.A.No.286/2001 on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the appellate court') confirming the judgment dated 21/06/2001 in C.C.No.494/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal (for short 'the trial court').
2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC .
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
11/06/94 at about 7.15 p.m, revision petitioner drove KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KL-15-0988(TR.904) through the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram national high way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when it reached about 50 metres south of Maman Bridge, hit an ambassador car bearing registration No.KET
7372 and on account of the same, a passenger in the car, viz. Raju died and other passengers in the car and several passengers in the bus sustained grievous injuries.
4. The trial court after trial found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each u/s 279 and 338 of and further to undergo simple imprisonment for one year u/s 304A of . No separate sentence was passed u/s 337 of . In appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence imposed was modified. In supersession of the sentence passed by the trial court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable u/s 279 and 338 of and six months for the offence u/s 304A of . Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this revision petition.
5. I have heard Sri.P.V.Anoop, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The court below mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PWs 1 to 4 are the occurrence witnesses. PWs 1 and 2 were travelling in the car and PWs 3 and 4 were travelling in the bus. They gave evidence in tune with the prosecution case. Both courts below found that their evidence is reliable and would prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. There is also evidence on record that PWs 1 to 4 sustained injuries and another passenger in the car viz., Raju succumbed to the injuries. Both courts below, on appreciation of evidence, found that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC . It is settled that in revision, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments finding the revision petitioner guilty.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is now completely bedridden and he has lost sight of his both eyes. In these circumstances, substantive sentence imposed may be reduced to fine, submitted the counsel. In view of the said submission, I have directed the learned Public Prosecutor to contact the accused as well as the de facto complainant and to file a report. Accordingly, a detailed report has been filed by the Station House Inspector, Attingal. In the said report, it is stated that the revision petitioner is bedridden at his house at Kozhikode and eyesight of his both eyes are lost. It is further reported that his wife also is in the very same condition. In the report, it is further stated that the de facto complainant is no more and his wife is alive. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner is totally bedridden and his eye sight has already been lost, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to fine.
8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part as follows:
(i) The conviction passed by t
