Revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute trial court findings unless shown to be perverse or erroneous.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 961 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam and the appellant in Crl. Appeal 233 of 2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge- III, Mavelikkara. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and modified the sentence by releasing him on probation of good conduct and keep peace for a period of three years under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 5 of the to the legal representatives of the deceased Vasudevan and PW2.

2. Heard Sri. Arjun R., the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on record and Sri. Alex M.

Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that on 20.03.2016, at about 3 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle with his son as pillion rider through Kayamkulam-Chettikulangara public road, the motorcycle ridden by the revision petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side caused to hit the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and thereby, the deceased and his son were thrown to the road and subsequently, the injured Vasudevan Nair succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the trial court and the appellate court failed to consider the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the trial court and the appellate court ought to have found that the accused was only a pillion rider and he was falsely implicated in this case.

5. A perusal of the trial court judgment clearly shows that no contradiction is marked while cross examining the material witnesses. PW2 is the son of the deceased and he was travelling as pillion rider in the motorcycle ridden by his father and the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that the motorcycle ridden by the accused from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle of his father and hence, the accident occurred.

6. PWs 3 and 4 are occurrence witnesses who supported the prosecution and their evidence also shows that the offending vehicle was ridden by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and the same caused to hit the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. Even though, it is contended that the accused was a pillion rider, there is nothing in evidence to substantiate the said contention. Another ground raised in the revision petition is that the trial court and the appellate court failed to consider the fact that DW1 was not cross examined by the prosecution. But, a perusal of the deposition of DW1 clearly shows that he was seriously cross examined by the prosecution.

7. The trial court and the appellate court, after a proper appreciation of the evidence, arrived at the finding that the rash and negligent driving of the accused has resulted in the accident and that even DW1 has admitted in cross examination that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of occurrence.

8. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [ (2018) 8 SCC 165 ], the Honourable Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:

“12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [ State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)

“5. … In its revision