Sibi Chacko vs State Of Kerala

G.Girish, J

The revision petitioner is a KSRTC bus driver who was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg for the commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. The above conviction as well as the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 I.P.C and 337 I.P.C and simple imprisonment for one year each under Sections 338 and 304A I.P.C imposed by the learned Magistrate, was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasaragod in Crl.A.No.431/2004.

The prosecution case is that on 03.06.2000 at about 8:15 a.m, the petitioner drove the KSRTC bus with Reg.No.KL-15/3147 in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, along Kasaragod-Kanhangad highway resulting in the said bus dashing into the car with Reg.No.KL-8/9329 driven by PW5 in the opposite direction leading to the death of the father of PW5 who was travelling in that car, and injuries to the other travellers including PW5.

In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 13 witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW13 and 10 documents marked as Exts.P1 to P10. The petitioner did not prefer any defence evidence. After evaluating the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C and convicted him thereunder. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C, and simple imprisonment for one year each under Sections 338 and 304A I.P.C with the direction that the tenure of the sentence shall run concurrently.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasaragod, who considered the appeal filed by the petitioner, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and thus the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the courts below went wrong in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and hence the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are bad in the eye of law. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is absolutely no reason to doubt the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 pointing to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, and that the indications in the scene mahazar marked as Ext.P3 would further confirm the above testimonies of PW5 and PW6.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 contain clear indications about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner resulting in the accident involved in this case. That apart, the scene mahazar marked as Ext.P3 would reveal that the tyre marks of the bus at the scene of crime are indicative of the fact that the bus driven by the petitioner was coming through the wrong side at the time of the accident. There is absolutely no reason to take a different view on that matter. Moreover, there is absolutely no scope for a re-appraisal of the evidence in a revision proceeding, unless it is shown that there had been manifest, illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the findings of the courts below in the impugned judgments. The proposition of law in this regard has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999 SC 981, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr. : 2015 (3) SCC 123 and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165.

Thus, there is no scope for interference with the conviction of the petitioner by the courts below in respect of the commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. However, taking into account of the fact that the incident involved in this case took place 23 years ago, and that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been involved in similar offences prior to or after this accident, I am of the view that the imprisonment of the petitioner in prison has to be avoided if he is prepared to remit exemplary fine inclusive of compensation to the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a sentence of fine Rs.500/- under Section 337 I.P.C and Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C and Rs.12,500/- under Section 304A I.P.C would be adequate punishment to meet the ends of justice.

In the result, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C, the sentence is modified as fine Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 337 I.P.C and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C and Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) under Section 304A I.P.C. In default of payment of fine as directed above, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the total fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), if realised, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C to PW5 and PW6 or their legal heirs.