Evidentiary standards in identification and concurrent sentencing were thoroughly examined in light of the appellant's circumstances.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.4715/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda (for short ‘the trial court’). He faced trial for the offences punishable under Section s 279 , 337, 338 & 304A of IPC and Section s 185 , 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the MV Act).

2. The prosecution allegation in short is that the petitioner drove a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-45-J-8252 through Edathirinji – Valavanangadi road from south to north in a rash and negligent manner on 14.03.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. and when he reached near Priya Hotel situated at Padiyoor, his motor cycle hit a bicycle which came from the opposite direction, causing serious injury to the rider of the bicycle aged 14 years, who succumbed to the injuries on 16.03.2014 at the hospital.

3. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section s 279 , 338 & 304 A of IPC and Section 3 (1) read with Section 181 of the MV Act, and he was convicted for the said offences. He was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 185 of the MV Act.

He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC , one year for the offence punishable under Section 338 of , two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of and two months for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) r/w 181 of the MV Act. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Crl.A. No.275 of 2016. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

4. I have heard Sri.Sangeeth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The trial court as well as the appellate court relied on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the petitioner. PW1 is the father of the deceased who gave Ext.P1 FIS. PWs2 and 5 are the occurrence witnesses. PW3 was the pillion rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident. PW2 gave evidence that he saw the accident. He deposed that he was sitting on a bench situated in front of the Priya Hotel, which was situated just 15 meters away from the place of occurrence. According to him, while the deceased was riding the bicycle from north to south through the northern side of the road, the motor cycle driven by the petitioner came from the southern direction and hit on the bicycle. He deposed that the motor cycle came at a high speed, and hit against the bicycle. PW 3 was the pillion rider. According to him, he also sustained injury due to the accident. He admitted that it was the petitioner who drove the motor cycle at the time of accident. His evidence would show that the motor cycle was proceeding from south to north and hit against the bicycle driven by the deceased. He further deposed that he was taken to the hospital as he sustained injury. PW5 is another occurrence witness. According to him, he was driving the car at the relevant time, and he stopped the vehicle after seeing the accident. He deposed that the motor cycle and bicycle colluded in the incident. He further deposed that the motor cycle which came from wrong side hit against the bicycle. He also deposed that he stopped the car and took the injured to the hospital. Even though PWs 2, 3 and 5 were cross examined, nothing tangible could be extracted from their evidence to discredit their version.

6. The learned couns