AYAMKURISSI MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On the final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police Perintalmanna on the allegation that at about 4.30 p.m on 12.10.1993, the revision petitioner caused a motor accident by rashness and negligence in driving the bus No. KLG - 5131, and thus caused injuries to different persons, the revision petitioner faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Perintalmanna . He pleaded not guilty before the trial court. But on trail he was found guilty by the trial court, and he was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 279 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment, for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500 under Section 337 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees One thousand only) under Section 338 IPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session Manjeri with Crl. A 33 of 2000. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the Crl. A. Now the accused is before this court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) IN the particular facts and circumstances, I feel the necessity of some modification in sentence. The accident occurred in October 1993, and now we are in 2014. It is true that many persons had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. But only two of them had grievous injuries. The others sustained only very simple injuries like abrasion, contusion etc. However I feel that the persons who sustained injuries will have to be compensated, and for this purpose a modification in sentence is felt necessary. Considering the long lapse of years since the date of accident, and also the circumstances in which the accident occurred, I feel that the jail sentence can be reduced to the minimum possible under the law, and with the object of granting compensation to the victims of offence the fine sentence can be set aside, and instead the revision petitioner can be directed to make payment of compensation to the persons who sustained injuries in the accident. I feel that such a course will do justice to the victims. So far as the revision petitioner is concerned, he has already undergone mental tension and stress on a thought of conviction and sentence for the last so many years. Thus I find that this revision can be allowed in part, to the limited extent of modifying the sentence for the purpose of doing justice to the victims of offence.