The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving while modifying the sentence to a fine, thus balancing justice and punishment.

G. GIRISH, J.

-------------------------------- Crl.Rev.Pet.No.365 of 2011 -------------------------------------

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, and the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, in S.T.C.No.658 of 2004 and Crl.A.No.577 of 2004 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC , and Section 134 (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act , are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner drove a private bus in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life and caused the above bus to hit PW1, who was standing by the side of the road at about 12.55 pm on 10.12.2003, resulting in grievous hurt to that witness. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PWs 1 to 6, and brought on record eight documents as Exts.P1 to P8. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC , and Section 134 (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 , Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 338 , and fine Rs.500/- with the default clause of Simple Imprisonment for 14 days under (b) read with of the . In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and upheld the conviction recorded and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

4. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to arrive at the conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the private bus by the petitioner had resulted in the accident. Among the above witnesses, PW1 is the injured, and PW2 is a person, who is said to have witnessed the accident. On going through the case records, and the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the courts below about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner resulting in the accident, cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. However, as regards the sentence awarded, it appears that the Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 338 , appears to be a little bit excessive. The punishment for the aforesaid offences is liable to be reduced to the maximum fine provided thereunder.

Subject to the above modifications, the revision petition stands disposed of as follows :-

(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC , and Section 134 (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act , are hereby upheld.

(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each under Sections 279 and 338 IPC .

(iii) The fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) awarded by the courts below for the commission of the offence under Section 134 (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act , is retained as such.

(iv) In default of payment of the total fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only), the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month.

(v) The petitioner shall make remittanc