Concurrent findings of fact from lower courts were upheld, establishing liability under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

ORDER

The petitioner herein, who was the accused in CC No.1099/1997 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannoor, was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate under Section 279 IPC to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine Rs.500/-, and under Section 337 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine Rs.250/- with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery, confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 15 days each under Sections 279 and 337 . Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 07.09.1997 at about 10 am, the petitioner drove an autorikshaw in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, through a public road and caused the above vehicle to hit a child resulting in injuries to that child. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW1 to PW8, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P6 from the part of the prosecution, and found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences. The Appellate Court made a reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence and upheld the conviction and awarded the modified sentence as stated above.

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

4. On going through the case records and the impugned judgment of the courts below, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC . It is seen that the witnesses examined by the prosecution as PW1 to PW3 have convincingly spoken about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner leading to the accident. There is absolutely no reason to dislodge the concurrent findings arrived by the courts below on the basis of the aforesaid evidence. However, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence proved to have been committed by the petitioner, I am of the view that the prison term awarded by the courts below is excessive and improper. The petitioner has to be given an option to remit the maximum fine provided as penalty for the offence committed by him.

In the result, the petition stands allowed in part as follows: 1) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC , are hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) under Section 279 IPC and fine Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under Section 337 .

3) In default of payment of the total fine of Rs.1500/-, the petitioner will undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

4) Petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from today to remit the fine as directed in this order.

Registry shall transmit the case records along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith for ensuring compliance.

Sd/-