Skaria Varghese @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Kerala

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C in C.C No.373/1994 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny. He faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 6.15 p.m on 29.6.1994, he drove the Bus No.KRB-565 rashly and negligently along the Puthukada-Chittar public road, the said bus capsized due to his rashness and over speed, and in the said accident, many passengers sustained simple injuries, and one of the passengers sustained a grievous injury. The Police registered the crime on the first information statement given by one of the injured, and after investigation, submitted final report in court.

The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P55 documents.

The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any oral evidence, but Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on his side.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 337 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with Crl.A.No.13/1997. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 6.12.2003.

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently. The prosecution examined some of the injured persons and the Doctors who treated them were also examined as witnesses. All the material witnesses consistently identified the accused as the driver of the bus, and they also stated that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The evidence given by these witnesses stands not discredited in cross-examination. Of course, it is true that most of the passengers sustained only very simple injuries and only one sustained fracture. The defence contention is that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. The accused relies on the evidence of PW27. But when asked about the reason for the accident, he could not say whether the accident actually caused due to mechanical defect. Some of the witnesses stated that they had heard some noise. The Motor Vehicle Inspector was not able to say definitely whether the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. It is true that the vehicle had extensive damage. But there is nothing to show that any vital part was broken before the accident, or that such thing caused the accident. I find that the prosecution case stands proved on facts by the evidence of the material witnesses, that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.

The accident occurred in 1994. Nobody had sustained any serious injury in the alleged accident. It appears that everybody was admitted at the hospital to claim compensation, and everybody was referred to the General Surgeon or the Ortho Surgeon by the Doctor. Even persons who had no injury externally were also referred to the Surgeon. This shows the circumstance and concern of the injured to claim compensation after the accident. Anyway, in the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that the maximum fine sentence will be the adequate sentence, and so the jail sentence can be set aside.

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C in C.C 373/1994 of the court below is confirmed and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the jail sentence imposed by the court below under the said sections will stand set aside and instead, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 I.P.C. In case of default in making payment of fine, the accused will have to undergo a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month each under the three Sections. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to make payment of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to realise the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.