MANIKANTAN @ SREEKUMARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC in C.C. No.884/1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 9 a.m. on 18.3.1995, he drove the lorry No.KLO-1B 4156 rashly and negligently along the Vlathankara - Poozhikunnu pocket road, the said lorry hit on a mini bus No.KL-01-2296 at the Plamoottukkada Junction, where the pocket road joints Plamoottukkada - Mavilakkadavu Public road, and in the said accident, some persons sustained simple and grievous injuries, and one passenger in the mini bus sustained fatal injuries, to which he succumbed within no time. The police registered the crime on the F.I.Statement given by one of the injured persons, and after investigation, submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty, when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.

(2.) The prosecution examined 35 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P38 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and projected a defence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Sections 304(A) and 338 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 337 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.3.1998, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram with Crl.A. No.156/1998. In appeal, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months each, and the sentence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was set aside for the reason that separate sentence is not necessary. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.