In criminal revisions, courts do not re-evaluate evidence unless glaring injustices or violations warrant it.

ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Crl. Appeal

264 of 2018 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Muvattupuzha. The revision petitioner is the accused and as per the impugned judgment, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 , 304A of IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w 181 and 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.08.2014 at 7.30 p.m., the motorcycle ridden by the accused in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the wife of PW2 and on 11.08.2014, she succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

3. For the offence under Section 304A of IPC , the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 279 , the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 3 (1) r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act , and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 146 r/w 196 of the and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.

4. Heard Sri. M.R. Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving any rash or negligent act on the part of the revision petitioner and the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in this regard is not legally sustainable. But, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor pointed out that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have categorically deposed that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused and in spite of serious cross examination, no material omission or contradiction was brought out and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court in this regard.

6. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 3 and 5 clearly shows that the deceased was walking through the side of the road along with her husband and the motorcycle ridden by the accused in over speed and in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the deceased. It is in evidence that there was no other vehicle on the road at the time of occurrence. It is pertinent to note that while cross examining PWs 1 and 2, the accused/revision petitioner has no case that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased or she crossed the road abruptly at the time of occurrence.

7. It is true that while cross examining PW3, the defence made a suggestion that the accident occurred when the deceased crossed the road; but the said suggestion is seen denied by the witness. The evidence of PW5, another occurrence, also supports the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW5 also denied the suggestion of the defence that the accident occurred when the deceased abruptly crossed the road. The evidence of the material witnesses clearly shows that the deceased was walking through the side of the road and there was sufficient space for the accused/revision petitioner to drive the vehicle and therefore, it cannot be held that the view taken by the trial court and the appellate court is without appreciating the evidence i