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, Perinthalmanna. 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. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the prosecution records I find that the prosecution has well proved the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. All the material witnesses who sustained injuries in the accident supported the prosecution during trail, and they identified the revision petitioner herein as the driver of the bus involved in the accident. PW1 to PW9 and PW11 to PW14 examined in the trail court are the persons who sustained injuries in the alleged accident. Of them PW8 and PW 9 sustained grievous injuries involving fracture. All the material witnesses are definite that the alleged accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. All are consistent that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry behind which the bus driven by the revision petitioner hit. I find no reason for interference in the findings made by the courts below on facts, regarding the identity of the driver of the bus or regarding the reason for the accident. I find that conviction was rightly made by the courts below under the above sections.
4. 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.
5. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part, confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, however modifying the sentence as follows:
1. The jail sentence imposed by the courts below under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC will stand reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court.
2. The fine sentence imposed by the courts below will stand set aside.
3. The revision petitioner is directed to make compensation to the victims of offence under Section 357 (4) Cr.PC at the following rate:
a. Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) each shall be paid as compensation to PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW7 and PW11 to PW14.
b. Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) each shall be paid to PW8 and PW9
4. In default of making payment of compensation the revision petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, within one month from this date on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trail court to enforce the sentence, and to recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab