IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 865 of 2007 IN CRA 282/2005 of D.C. & SESSIONS & MACT,KASARAGOD IN CC 430/2001 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD DATED 07-10-2005 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

N. VELUSWAMY, S/O.NATESAN, REDDY STREET, SILVAMPETTY,, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU.

BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT::

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ds P.UBAID, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2018

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal code in C.C. No. 430 of 2001 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod. He faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 9.30 p.m. on 03.08.2000, he drove the tanker lorry No. AP 10T 7154 rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life, along the Kannur - Mangalore National Highway, the said tanker lorry hit on the mini lorry No. KL 7G-3085 at Arieal due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, and in the said accident, the two passengers in the mini lorry sustained injuries, and the driver of the mini lorry sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed on the spot. The police registered the crime on the complaint made by one of the injured, and submitted final report in court after investigation.

2. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents in the trial court.

3. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that the accident, in fact, occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased, who was the driver of the mini lorry. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-

under Section 338 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

under Section 304A IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2001, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kasargod, with Crl.A. No. 282 of 2005. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence under Section 279 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months, the fine sentence under Section 337 IPC was maintained, the jail sentence under Section 338 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months, and the sentence under Section 304A IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The fine sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC was maintained. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

6. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the revision petitioner. Of the 12 witnesses examined in the trial court, PW4 and PW5 are the material witnesses. They were passengers in the mini lorry driven by the deceased. PW2 and PW3 did not support the prosecution.