Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”). The revision petitioner allegedly drove a jeep on 26.04.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. in a rash and negligent manner and the jeep knocked down PW2.
2. At the time of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked five documents. There was no defence evidence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the oral evidence adduced cannot be relied on to find that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him. It is to be borne-in- mind that this Court in deciding the matter in revisional jurisdiction can only go into the question of legality, propriety and correctness of the order or sentence awarded. The whole evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the garb of revisional jurisdiction.
5. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the courts below and the records.
6. PWs 1 and 2 were standing by the side of Kochi-Madurai National Highway at the time of accident. At that time, the jeep driven by the revision petitioner came from west in over speed and in a rash manner. On seeing the dangerous manner in which the jeep was coming, PWs 1 and 2 tried to move away. The jeep hit on a mount of earth by the side of road entrapping PW2 beneath. He sustained serious injuries including fracture of sixth rib on the left side. He was removed to the hospital. Ext.P2 is the wound certificate. The testimony of PWs 1 and 2 amply proved that the revision petitioner was rash and negligent while driving and his rashness and negligence caused the accident.
7. It appears that the revision petitioner raised a dispute regarding identity of the driver. Relying on the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, the courts below held that the revision petitioner himself was driving the vehicle at the material time. On going through the entire evidence, I find no reason to hold that there is illegality or impropriety in the decision of the courts below. Therefore, I find that the convictions of the revision petitioner under Secs.279, 337 and 338 IPC are to be confirmed.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the incident happened in the year 1997. All these years, he has been tangled in a prosecution. Therefore, learned counsel requested for showing leniency in the matter of sentence. It is to be born-in-mine that reckless driving is a menace to the public safety. However, considering the facts and circumstances, I find that some modification in the sentence can be made.
In the result, revision petition is partly allowed. Convictions of the revision petitioner under Secs.279, 337 and 338 IPC are confirmed. The revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under Sec.279 IPC and further periods of one month each under Secs.337 and 338 IPC. All these sentences shall run concurrently. The revision petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of set off under Sec.428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rest of the directions in the judgment of the lower appellate court is retained. Court below shall take urgent steps to execute the sentence.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks A.HARIPRASAD, J.
Crl.R.P. No.1302 of 2003 ORDER 7th November, 2014