The High Court may modify sentences in criminal convictions considering the time elapsed and circumstances of the accused while reaffirming the conviction if no legal impropriety is found.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the convict in C.C.No.420 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perintalmanna, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 338 of with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 17.03.2007 at 13.45 hours, the accused drove the lorry bearing Registration Number KL-11A 9642 through the public road from Wandoor to Manjeri in a rash and negligent manner, resulting collision of the lorry with a passenger bus bearing Registration No.KL-10/B 4131, which was coming from the opposite direction. Consequent to the accident, PWs 1 to 3, who were travelling in the bus, suffered fractures and other injuries. Thus, the accused committed the above offences.

3. On the basis of the First Information Statement of PW1, Crime No.63 of 2007 was registered at Wandoor Police Station against the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC . After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the Jurisdictional Court, and it was taken cognizance. After completing the procedure of formalities, the evidence was recorded by the Trial Court and from the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 16 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner-accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted him and imposed the sentence as stated above.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner-accused as Crl.A.No.300 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, ended in dismissal as per the judgment dated 09.07.2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri. Being aggrieved, the petitioner- accused is now before this Court with the present revision petition.

5. On 30.10.2014, when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the same on file and as per the order pronounced on that date in Crl.(MA) No.6750 of 2014, the execution of the sentence was suspended on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

6. On 29.09.2025, when this revision petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that PWs 2 and 3, who are the injured in the accident, were paid compensation in the Motor Accidents claims filed by them. The learned counsel requested a short adjournment to gather information regarding the compensation, if any, received by PW1, the other injured in the accident.

7. Today, when this revision petition is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel produced the awards dated 08.03.2011 and 31.05.2012 in O.P(M.V.)Nos.778 of 2007, 863 of 2007, and 1332 of 2008, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, ordered compensation to PWs 1 to 3 payable by the insurer. On perusal of the said awards, it can be gathered that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,459/- wit