Judicial discretion must be exercised in sentencing; maximum penalties should align with the nature of offences to avoid harshness.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment dated 05.11.1998 in Crl. Appeal No.92/1995 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam, which arose from the judgment dated 25.08.1995 in C.C.No.1769/1992 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Munsiff Magistrate), Paravoor. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.10.1992 at about 5:40 p.m., the accused drove a car bearing Registration No. KL 2 5099 along the Thiruvananthapuram–Kollam National Highway in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, and when the said vehicle reached a place called Thattarukonam, it allegedly hit PW1, causing grievous injuries to him. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of the IPC and convicted him. For the offence punishable under Section 279 of the , the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the , the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In view of Section 71 of the , no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the .

4. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the finding and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has come up with this revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. M.R.Sasith Panicker, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Maya M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the accused are illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was argued that both the trial court and the appellate court placed undue reliance on the testimony of PW2, the de facto complainant, without taking note of the fact that he failed to identify the accused as the person who had driven the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the sentence imposed on the accused is unduly harsh and not commensurate with the nature of the offence for which he was found guilty.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and that no interference is warranted. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to establish that, at the relevant time, the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, and that it was due to such negligent driving that PW2 sustained serious injuries.

8. This is a case in which PW2 allegedly sustained injuries in a motor accident. According to the prosecution, while PW2 was standing on the roadside margin of the Thiruvananthapuram–Kollam National Highway at Thattarukonam, he was knocked down by a car driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.