THOMAS M.R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional power is conferred on the High Court with an object of general supervision of the court below in order to correct the grave failure or miscarriage of justice arising from the erroneous orders. The revision petitioner challenges the judgment of concurrent finding in Crl.A.No.92 of 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge -II(Fast Track), Palakkad for offence under Section 279, 304 IPC on the ground that there was misreading of evidence and thereby error occurred in the judgment of the lower court. He was the accused in C.C.No.11 of 1998 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi and convicted under Section 279 and 304A IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 304 A IPC and no separate sentence under Section 279 IPC. Against the conviction of the trial court accused preferred the above criminal appeal in which the conviction of the lower court is confirmed. In this context, I may observe that the revisional power is discretionary and there is no vested right of revision where as such vested right ensured in appeal.

(2.) The facts necessary for the indictment can be narrated as below. On 26.8.1997 at 19.45 hours, revision petitioner was driving KL15 1566 KSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner along the Pattambi - Kulappulli public road. When the bus reached at the place of occurrence, it knocked down the deceased who was riding a bicycle with PW2 through the Pattambi- Kulappully road. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pattambi registered a case and after completing investigation, he laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi.

(3.) To substantiate the rash and negligent act of the revision petitioner, prosecution adduced both oral and documentary evidence in the trial court. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 to PW14 and documentary evidence of Ext.P1 to P10. The trial court also marked MO1 as material object. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted the revision petitioner.