Rash and negligent driving under IPC leading to deaths requires strict sentencing as a deterrent.

O R D E R

In this criminal revision petition, challenge is to the judgment in Crl.A No.67/2017 of Sessions Court, Kollam, by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused in C.C.No.226/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC .

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2007, at around

9.45 am, accused drove a lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 through Kottiyam-Chathannoor public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when the lorry reached at Sithara junction, it hit on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 Thoufik, and thereafter it hit on an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818. In the incident, PW1 who was riding the motorcycle, the autorickshaw driver and the passengers sustained injuries. Two passengers who were travelling in the said autorickshaw succumbed to the injuries. It is also the prosecution case that after the incident, accused did not stop the offending lorry and did not take the injured to the hospital and he left the place without even informing the police about the incident. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 134 (a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P18. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC , and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. Accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 134 (a)

(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and he was acquitted of the said offence.

6. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.67/2017 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the conviction against him for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC was confirmed, but the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/- for the offence under Section 279 , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 337 , he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence under Section 338 he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 304A he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

7. Revision petitioner/accused impugns the judgment of conviction and sentence against him contending that there was no rashness or negligence on his part; that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the incident and therefore the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in relying on their evidence.

8. 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 there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence.

9. When this revision petition came up for he