KURIAKOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged in this Criminal Revision is that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months imposed on the petitioner for the offence under S.304A I.P.C. has no justification. Alternatively it was contended that a more lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence because, the facts of the case would reveal that the motor accident described in this case was only on account of an error of judgment on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged to have a new look at the sentencing policy while dealing with offences involving S.304A I.P.C.

(2.) The case against the petitioner, in short, is that he drove a jeep so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life, .through Muvattupuzha - Thodupuzha public road, from West to East, during the afternoon of 26 -2 -1981 and the jeep went off the road towards right at the place of occurrence and dashed against a cart which was parked on the extreme south of the road and then the vehicle moved further towards south and ranover one Moideen who was sitting in the Veranda of a house on the road -side. Moideen later succumbed to his injuries. The petitioner did not dispute that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident, nor did he dispute that the jeep dashed against the cart and hit the deceased down. His version was that while he was driving his jeep behind a car, he had to overtake the car which was abruptly stopped in front of him and while overtaking the car, he noticed a bus rushing from the opposite direction; and in order to avoid a head -on -collision with the bus, he had to swerve his vehicle further to his right and then the consequences followed.

(3.) The trial Magistrate as well as the appellate court (Sessions Court) found that the prosecution story has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they rejected the defence theory as improbable. Accordingly, the petitioner was found, guilty of the offence and was therefore, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The concurrent findings based on evidence need no disturbance in this revision and the learned counsel has no contention that the findings are vitiated by any error of that degree or unreasonableness of such a dimension as would warrant interference from revisional' court. Hence, the learned counsel made focus on the sentence alone during the time of arguments in this revision.