The revision petition was disposed of by confirming the conviction for offences under IPC Sections 279 and 338 while modifying the sentence to a fine only, based on evidence of rash driving.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi, and the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri, in C.C.No.892 of 2007 and Crl.A.No.187 of 2012 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC , are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner drove an autorikshaw in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, at about 5.15 pm on 26.05.2006, and caused the above vehicle to hit a person by name ‘Abdul Azees’, resulting in his death.

3. The Final Report in this case was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirurangady, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 3 (1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act . After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 10, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P10, the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the offences under Sections 304A and (1) read with of the , are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the commission of offences under and 338 and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and fine Rs1,000/- under Section 279 , and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 . A default clause of Simple Imprisonment for one month was provided for non-payment of fine. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge - III, Manjeri, who considered the appeal, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. The aforesaid verdicts of the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The Investigating Officer had incorporated the offence under Section 304A of the IPC in the Final Report due to the reason that the accident victim lost his life after about one week from the date of accident. The Trial Court found that the cause of death was pneumonia, which was not related to the accident. It is for the aforesaid reason that the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the offence under , and incorporated Section 338 . The Appellate Court upheld the aforesaid verdict of the learned Magistrate.

6. On going through the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, and also the facts borne out of the evidence on record, it is not possible to say that the courts below went wrong in arriving at the findings that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner had resulted in the accident. Therefore, the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the courts below for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC , are not liable to be dislodged in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prison term awarded by the courts below, is liable to be avoided. The petitioner is liable to pay the maximum fine provided for the offences under and 338 .

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 , are hereby conf