What is practically under challenge in this revision is, conviction and sentence under Section 279 IPC. On an allegation that the revision petitioner herein caused a motor accident by rashness and negligence and thereby caused injuries to different persons, the revision petitioner faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur in S.T No. 4019 /1995 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. He pleaded not guilty during trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked Ext. P1 to P9 in the trial court. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and convicted him. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees thousand only) each under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. No separate sentence sentence was imposed under Section 337 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl. A No. 95/2000. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction under Section 279 IPC, but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 338 IPC. Now the accused is before this court in this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence under Section 279 IPC.
3. On hearing the learned Counsel and on a perusal of the case records I find that the prosecution has well proved the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution have given definite evidence proving the alleged accident involving the vehicle driven by the revision petitioner, and they have also well identified the accused during trial as the person who caused the accident, or as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. All the material witnesses are definite that the alleged motor accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner. Of course, evidence well proves that some persons had sustained simple injuries in the alleged accident. But no sentence was imposed by the trial court, though found guilty under Section 337 IPC. So the scope of enquiry in this revision is limited to the conviction and sentence under Section 279 IPC.
4. As already stated, the prosecution has well proved the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. I find no scope for interference in the conviction made under Section 279 IPC. However I feel that the sentence can be modified. The alleged accident occurred in July 1995, and now we are in 2014. The material witnesses had sustained only very simple injuries in the incident. Considering the long lapse of years since the date of accident, and also considering the circumstances of the revision petitioner now, I feel that the maximum fine sentence under Section 279 IPC will be the adequate sentence. Accordingly the jail sentence can be set aside. To that limited extent this revision petition can be allowed.
In the result this revision petition is allowed in part, confirming the conviction under Section 279 IPC, but modifying the sentence. Accordingly the jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 279 IPC will stand set aside. But the fine sentence with default sentence thereon is maintained.
The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court and make payment of fine amount within one month from this date, if not already remitted, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to recover the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab