Sajan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2015-04-08
Court Decision / Holding: Conviction upheld; however, sentence is modified: (i) ₹1,000 under IPC 279 with simple imprisonment for 15 days on default; (ii) ₹1,000 under IPC 338 with simple imprisonment for 1 month on default; (iii) ₹500 under MV Act Section 187 with simple imprisonment for 15 days on default. Fines must be paid within 15 days from receipt of the order; failure to pay would lead to warrants for recovery. This revision petition is partly allowed.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajan, S/o. Viswanathan, Mangalavil Veedu, K.P. V/938, Near Decent Mukku, Mudapuram Desom, Kizhuvilam Village; currently residing at P.B. No. 104486, Riyadh, K.S.A.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri M.R.Rajesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by Sajan, the accused, challenging the conviction recorded in C.C. No. 610 of 1995 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal, for offences under IPC sections 279, 337, 338 and Section 134(b) read with S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Sessions Court Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction in CRA 97/1998. The incident occurred on 3 January 1995 at 6 p.m. when the accused allegedly drove a motorcycle (KRT 4103) in a rash and negligent manner, knocking down PW2, a minor, causing grievous injuries; PW1, her mother, testified regarding the accident and subsequent treatment. PW1 and PW2 supported the prosecution version; Ext. P2 (medical certificate) showed a fracture to PW2’s foot. The defense argued that the accident occurred while a minor was crossing the road, and therefore the accused could not avoid the impact, suggesting illegality in the lower courts’ findings. The High Court notes the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence is corroborated by medical and scene-examination material (Exts. P7 etc.). However, invoking the leniency principle from Apex Court precedent (Madhanlal Ramachandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra), the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing penalties to a fine structure and directing payment within 15 days. The matter was partly allowed, balancing accountability with proportional sentencing.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 279, 337, 338Section 134(b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Leniency in sentencing
Madhanlal Ramachandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1267

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the accident occurred while a minor was crossing the road; hence, the accused could not avoid the collision, rendering the conviction illegal and requiring rectification of the lower courts' illegality. The counsel also notes the long lapse since the 1995 incident and argues for leniency in sentencing, given the petitioner’s age (around 30 at the time) and the long period elapsed.

Contentions of Respondents

Prosecution asserts that the evidence (PW1 and PW2) establishes rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, corroborated by medical records (Ext. P2) and scene evidence (Ext. P7). The conviction by the trial court and affirmation by the Sessions Court should be maintained; there is no basis to interfere with the established facts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madhanlal Ramachandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra	AIR 1968 SC 1267	Positive	Used to justify leniency in sentencing in appropriate cases.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2037 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 97/1998 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED 20-12-2002** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 610/1995 of J.M.F.C.-I,ATTINGAL DATED 13-02-1998** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------SAJAN, S/O. VISWANATHAN, MANGLAVIL VEEDU, K.P. V/938, NEAR DECENT MUKKU, MUDAPURAM DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT P.B.NO,104486, RIYADH, K.S.A.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:** **--------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **acd** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 2037 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2015 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.610 of 1995 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, which was charge sheeted by Chirayinkeezhu Police for the offence punishable u/s.279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 134(b) r/w. S.187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution allegation is that on 3.1.1995 at 6 p.m., the revision petitioner drove a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KRT 4103 through the public road from Yoosufmukku junction to Cheruvallilmukku in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. When he reached at Brahmapuri temple, it knocked down PW1 and caused grievous injuries to her. Immediately, she was removed to hospital. On the basis of Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 2 information, Chirayinkeezhu Police registered the case and after investigation, laid charge before Court. 2. In the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exts.P1 to P9. Ext.P1 was marked while cross examination of PW2. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the revision petitioner, while questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under the above sections. Against that, he preferred Crl.Appeal No.97/98 before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, where the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below was confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the accident was occurred while crossing the road by the minor and therefore, the revision petitioner could not avoid the accident. Hence, the illegality committed by the Court below is to be rectified. Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 3 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the above contention and contended that the prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the above findings. 5. In the trial Court, the 1[st] injured was examined as PW1. PW1 is the mother of PW2. According to PW1, while they were returning from temple, a motorcycle driven by the revision petitioner knocked down while PW2 was walking infront of PW1. Immediately, the minor child was removed to hospital and there was nobody to lookafter the minor child. She gave Ext.P1 statement on 10.1.1995. PW2 deposed that she sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The above oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 is believable and there is no reasons to discard that evidence. There was a suggestive question put forward by the revision petitioner that whether PW2 suddenly crossed the road and Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 4 thereby, the revision petitioner could not avoid the direct hit. But, this question was denied by PWs 1 and 2. Ext.P2 wound certificate issued by the Doctor, who examined PW2, shows that PW2 had sustained fracture on her foot as a result of the hit of the motorcycle. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the injuries noted in Ext.P2 was due to hit of motorcycle and the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 shows that the revision petitioner was rash and negligent at the time of accident. PWs 5 and 6 were Doctors, who treated PW2. Therefore, the medical evidence is corroborating the occurrence evidence. No reasons are stated to discard the investigation. Immediately after the accident, the police official arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar. After completing investigation, final report filed before Court. I do not find any reason to interfere in the conviction passed by Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 5 the trial Court. Therefore, I uphold the finding of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed by the Court below is too harsh and some leniency may be shown in sentence. The incident was happened on 3.1.1995 and the revision petitioner was aged 30 years at that time. Twenty years have already been elapsed after the incident, and there is no meaning in sentencing him to in jail. Apex Court in **Madhanlal Ramachandra Daga** v. **State of** **Maharashtra** [ AIR 1968 SC 1267] held that when considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the court feels that a leniency can be shown, the Court may take a lenient view in sentence. Hence, the conviction u/s.279, 338 IPC and u/s.187 of Motor Vehicles Act is confirmed, but the sentence is modified as follows: Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 6 1) The revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of; a) ₹1000/- u/s.279 IPC, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days; b) ₹1000/- u/s.338 IPC, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month and; c) ₹500/- u/s.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2) The fine amounts shall be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Magistrate is directed to issue warrant for realisng the fine amount. This revision petition is partly allowed. ## **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 7 Crl.R.P.l No.2037/2003 8