SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10244

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J
KUTTIKKATTIL UMMER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN, SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No. 195 of 2002 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Manjeri, filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 279 and 338 IPC.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on

17.04.2002 at about 10.45 a.m., the revision petitioner drove a jeep bearing registration No.TN 37/S 5077 along the public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when it reached at Kavungapara, it hit against the motor cycle ridden by PW1 and as a consequence, PW1 was thrown to the road and he sustained injuries.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

5. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance is available before the court to indicate that the concurrent finding or the appreciation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top