Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 1 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 1261 OF 2006 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 185/2000 OF I ADDITIONAL ``` ``` SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 585/1997 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:`** ``` SASIDHARAN PILLAI S/O. THANKAPPAN PILLAI, KUTTIKATTUVILA VEEDU, NEAR ST.JUDE HIGH SCHOOL, NADUVILALAKKARA CHERI,, THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.C.RAJENDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE STATE OF KERALA SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` SRI SANAL P RAJ,PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## O R D E R This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.2006 in Crl.A No.185/2000 on the file of the 1[st] Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam (for short ‘the appellate court’), confirming the judgment dated 29.8.2000 in C.C.No.585/1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam (for short ‘the trial court’). 2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 r/w Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 15.5.1997 at 6 am., the accused, who was the driver of a private bus bearing registration No.KRQ/3193 drove it in a rash and negligent manner through Kollam-Kannanalloor Road and knocked the deceased Kuttan Pillai and Sarasamma, who were walking along the road in the same direction causing them serious injuries and they succumbed to ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 3 ``` the injuries. 4. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared at the trial court. The particulars of offence were read over and explained to him, who pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked Exts.P1 to P13. On the side of the defence Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the court below found the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304(A) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 279 IPC. The appellate court in appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal. ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 4 ``` 7. I have heard Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs1 and 2, who are the independent occurrence witnesses to prove the incident and to fix the liability on the accused. They are the persons who witnessed the incident and identified the accused as the driver of the bus involved in the accident. They are living close to the public road where the incident was taken place. They deposed that they knew the accused and therefore, there was no difficulty for them to identify the accused at the time of accident. They clearly gave evidence that they saw the bus bearing registration No.KRQ/3193 coming from west to east on 15.5.1997 at 6 am., in high speed and hit the deceased behind their back causing serious injuries. They further deposed that there was no special reason why the bus came to the northern margin of the road through which the deceased pedestrians were walking. Their evidence further shows ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 5 ``` that there were no other vehicles in the road enabling the driver of the offending bus to contend that there was any overtaking by any other vehicle. Both PWs1 and 2 clearly identified the accused at the court. Even though the learned counsel for the accused highlighted certain contradictions in the evidence of Pws1 and 2, the trial court on an evaluation of evidence found that the contradiction highlighted was insignificant. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence found that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 could be relied on. The trial court also found that the identification made by PWs1 and 2 that the accused was driving the vehicle could be relied on. The trial court further found that the evidence on record would show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The appellate court on reappreciation of the evidence confirmed those findings. 9. Ext.P11(a) reply submitted by the owner of the bus would show that the accused was the driver of the bus at the time of accident. The death of two pedestrians is proved by the inquest ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 6 ``` reports marked as Exts.P3 and P4 and postmortem certificate marked as Ext.P5. Both the courts concurrently found that the prosecution has established in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and in the said accident two pedestrians succumbed to the injuries. 10. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C was to confer power upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. In Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwarj and others (2015(2) SCC 721) the Apex Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/2006 ``` ``` 7 ``` 11. Since there are concurrent findings of the two courts below, this Court would be circumspect in invoking the revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. It is only if the decision rendered by the two courts below can be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records, evidence and proceedings and judgments of the two courts below. I find no impropriety or illegality therein, warranting interference under the exercise of revisional powers vested with the courts in the conviction passed by the courts below. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.C.Rajendran next submitted that leniency may be shown in the sentence imposed by the courts below. The counsel submits that the revision petitioner is a first time offender. The courts below imposed substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. However, no compensation was awarded to the victims. ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/20068 ``` 13. Section 357 of Cr.P.C is an important provision empowering the court to award compensation to the victims of the crime while passing the judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to the victims who had suffered by the action of the accused. It is a measure of responding appropriate claim to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. The Supreme Court in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh & Others [AIR 1988 SC 2127], highlighted the necessity of invoking the power under Section 357 of Cr.P.C by the court. The Apex Court has recommended that the power under Section 357 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in better way. 14. As already stated, the accused is a first time offender. He has been facing ordeal of trial since 2014. He is a youngster now aged 41 years. Considering the entire facts and circumstances ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/20069 ``` of the case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to one month. At the same time, adequate compensation can be ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Hari Kishan (supra) has observed that the quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime and justness of the claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay and the compensation must be reasonable. The appellant is a driver. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the legal heirs of both the deceased would be just and reasonable. In the light of the above findings, the conviction passed by the courts below under Sections 279, 304(A) IPC and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands confirmed. The substantive sentence imposed by the courts below under Section 304(A) of IPC is reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- each ``` CRL.R.P NO. 1261/200610 ``` of the legal heirs of both the deceased, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304(A) IPC. The revision petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount at the court below within a period of two months from today. On such deposit, the court below shall issue notice and release the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab