The court can modify sentences based on the nature of the offense and the age of the accused.

O R D E R

The concurrent conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (in short ' IPC ') by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, are under challenge in this revision. The allegation against the petitioner is that he drove a KSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life, on 06.06.1999 through Kozhikode-Mavoor road, and caused the said vehicle to hit CW1, causing hurt to her. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW9, and documents marked as Exts P1 to P8, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279 & 337 to simple imprisonment for three months each. The Appellate Court by the judgment rendered on 20.09.2005 in Crl.Appeal No.54/2004, confirmed the above conviction but reduced the sentence to one month each for the offences under Sections 279 & 337 . It is the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, which is under challenge in this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. On going through the impugned judgments of the courts below and the case records, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner is guilty of commission of offences under Sections 279 & 337 IPC . However, it is to be noted that as a result of the accident, the victim had only suffered minor hurt. Having regard to the nature and the gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner, the sentence awarded by the courts below appears to be harsh and disproportionate. Therefore, the aforesaid sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Appellate Court is liable to be modified in this revision. The petitioner was aged 51 years at the time of commission of offence. Thus, at present, the age of the petitioner would be 76 years. Having regard to the above aspect as well as the nature of the offences committed by the accused, I am of the view that the punishment for the offences committed by the accused/petitioner is liable to be limited to fine alone.

In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows:

(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 & 337 IPC , are hereby confirmed.

(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 279 IPC , and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 337 .

(iii) In default of payment of the total fine of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only), the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 15 days.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one month from today for the payment of fine as directed in this order.

The Registry shall transmit the case records to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for enforcement of the sentence awarded upon the petitioner.