Strict adherence to precedent necessitates deterrence in sentencing for reckless driving resulting in death, reflecting societal responsibility.

O R D E R

In this revision petition, the revision petitioner/accused assails the judgment in Crl.A No.210/2013 of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against him in C.C.No.795/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Varkala, for the offences punishable under Sections

279, 337 and 304A IPC .

2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 5.5.2004 at around 8.30 pm. accused who was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15-2594 (T.N.557), drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life through Kallambalam- Varkala public road and hit on a scooter bearing registration No. No.KL- 01-W2918 ridden by PW1 with his minor daughter Archana, as a pillion rider. In the accident, PW1 and the pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries. The pillion rider, Archana aged 15 succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable underSections 279, 337 and 304A IPC .

3. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P15. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 279 , 337 and 304A of IPC , and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. For the offence under Section 304A he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Section 279 , he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 337 , he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

5. From the judgment of conviction and sentence though the accused preferred Criminal Appeal as Crl.A No.210/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by confirming the conviction and sentence.

6. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision, contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in analysing the evidence in its correct perspective; that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused;

that the testimonies of PW1 and PW8 are unbelievable and the court went wrong in relying on their evidence; that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused and the accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the accused; that the trial court and the appellate court have appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279 , 337 and 304A IPC rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court needs any interference by this Court, we have to bear in mind the well settled principle that the revisional power of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal and unless the finding of the court which is under challenge is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no