ANILKUMAR N. S/O NARAYANA PILLAI vs STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 1848 OF 2006 ``` ``` JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2006 IN Crl.A NO.145 OF 2002 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM ``` ``` JUDGMENT DATED 25.6.2002 IN CC NO.686 OF 1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:`** ``` ANILKUMAR N. S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, KIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, VILAKKUDI MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.S.B.JAYARESMI SRI.D.SAJEEV ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM . ``` ## **`SRI SANGEETHARAJ NR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30542 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -2- ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the accused in CC No.686/1995 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW11, and the documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P14, arrived at the finding that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279 and 304A IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, respectively. The driving license of the accused was also ordered to be suspended for a period of six months. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam, who considered the above appeal, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the above appeal was dismissed as per the judgment dated 15.03.2006. Aggrieved by the above dismissal of Crl.Appeal No.145/2002 by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, the ``` 2025:KER:30542 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -3- ``` petitioner is here with this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 3. The prosecution case relates to an accident which took place at 11.40 am on 05.07.1995, wherein, a lorry driven by the petitioner ran over a 72 year old lady, leading to her death. The rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner is alleged to have resulted in the said accident. 4. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW2 and PW3, who had the occasion to witness the incident. The learned Magistrate observed that, though there are some minor discrepancies in their evidence, the material particulars constituting the offence have been successfully established by the statements of those witnesses. The Appellate Court also opted for a reappraisal of the evidence, and found that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner resulted in the accident, which divested of the life of a 72 year old lady. On going through the judgments rendered by the courts below, and the case records, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard. There is absolutely no reason to think that the courts below relied **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30542` ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -4- ``` on inadmissible evidence, or that evidence which ought to have been acted upon, were discarded by the courts below. There is no manifest illegality or impropriety in the decisions rendered by the Trial Court, and the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, the scope of interference in revision by this Court is virtually nil. 5. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in revision, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ## 6. In **State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR** ## **1999 SC 981** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. ## 7. In **Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao** ## **Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123** , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30542` ## `Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -5-` law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. ## 8. Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in **Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165** as follows: Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14: ”14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or ``` 2025:KER:30542 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -6- ``` glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the parameters dealt with by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, which would enable the revisional court to unsettle the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, not at all exist in the case on hand. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident took place 30 years ago, and that the petitioner is now aged more than 60 years and suffering from various ailments. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner is compelled to undergo incarceration in prison at this stage, it is likely to imperil his life. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, especially in view of the fact that more than 3 decades passed away after the unfortunate incident, I feel that the incarceration of the petitioner in prison has to be avoided, if he is ready to pay exemplary compensation to the **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30542` ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -7- ``` legal representatives of the deceased. Thus, the sentence awarded by the courts below is liable to be modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of compensation of Rs.25000/- to PW1, the grandson of the deceased. In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows: i) The concurrent findings of conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, are hereby confirmed. ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, coupled with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.25000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to PW1. iii) In the event of failure to make payment of compensation as directed above, the petitioner will undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on or before 12.05.2025 to undergo the sentence imposed by this Court, and make payment of compensation as directed ``` 2025:KER:30542 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.R.P No.1848 of 2006 -8- ``` above. Transmit a copy of this order, along with case records, to the Trial Court immediately. Sd/- **G.GIRISH JUDGE** ``` IAP ```