The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence made against him by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') and also under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 9:30 a.m. on 05/07/1993 the revision petitioner drove the bus No.K.R.K.9527 rashly and negligently along the Changanacherry – Vazhoor public road, rashly overtook another bus which was kept stationary at the side of the road at Perumpanachy for lightening passengers and hit down a cyclist by name Thankappan Assari, and the said cyclist died on the same day at 7:30 p.m. due to the fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. It is further alleged that with the full knowledge of the result of the aforesaid accident, the revision petitioner escaped from the scene with the vehicle, and he did not take care of the person who sustained injuries.
3. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be filed. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in the case including the first informant and the owner of the bus involved in the accident, and also marked Exts.P1 to P11 and M.O.I to M.O.IV properties including the Trip Sheet relating to the vehicle as on the date of accident. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.') the revision petitioner made a defence of total denial, and made a further plea that the accident occurred when the deceased carelessly crossed the road. No evidence in defence was adduced by the revision petitioner. On an appreciation of evidence the trial court found that the whole prosecution allegation is true, and accordingly convicted the revision petitioner under the above sections of law. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 304(A) IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 279 IPC, and another term of Imprisonment for three months under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner (accused) approached the Court of Sessions, Kottayam with Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1999. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Now the accused is before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and on a perusal of the case records, I find that the prospection has well proved the case on facts. Of course it is true that practically there is only one witness to support the prosecution. The important witness is PW1 who gave the First Information Statement. PW2 did not fully support the prosecution. Of course, he stated about the unfortunate accident in which Thankappan Assari died, and he also stated that he was knocked down by the Jesus bus while riding on his bicycle from east to west. This witness stoutly denied the defence suggestion that Thankappan Assari happened to be knocked down when he carelessly crossed the road. However, when he stated that he could not identify the driver of the vehicle, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PW2.
6. PW1 has given definite evidence proving the accident, and also the reason for the accident. He also well identified the driver of the vehicle during trial. PW1 says in evidence that he witnessed the accident while he was sitting in the nearby shop. He could very well see and identify the driver. He denied the defence case that Thankappan Assari happened to be knocked down when he was crossed the road.
7. PW1 is definite that the accident occurred when the driver of the Jesus bus rashly and negligently overtook another bus which was kept stationary at the side of the road for alighting passengers. Of course PW2 has stated that prior to the accident, Thankappan Assari had crossed the road from north to south, but he was knocked down by the bus when he was proceeding towards the bus after crossing the road. This is the evidence of PW1 also.
8. An important question raised by the defence is regarding the exact identity of the driver of the bus involved in the accident. But identity stands well proved by the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW5 and also the M.O.IV Trip Sheet. The defence has no dispute regarding the genuineness of the M.O.IV Trip Sheet or M.O.IV (a) details of the driver and the conductor. PW5 is definite that as on the date of accident the accused was in fact the driver of his bus. He is the owner of the bus involved in the accident. Thus I find that the exact identity of the driver of the bus involved in the accident stands well proved in this case.
9. PW1 and PW2 are definite that deceased Thankkappan Assari was proceeding towards west on his bicycle when he was knocked down by the Jesus bus driven by the revision petitioner. Evidence satisfies the court that Thankappan Assari happened to be knocked down only because the revision petitioner rashly overtook the stationary bus. With full knowledge of the accident and the unfortunate result of the accident, the revision petitioner escaped with his bus without taking care of the injured. I find that he was rightly convicted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. I find no reason for interference in the findings made by the courts below on facts, regarding the actual nature of the accident, the reason for the accident and also the identity of the driver who caused the accident. I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.
11. Of course the sentence requires modification.
Every accident is quite unfortunate, but here, extreme leniency cannot be shown in favour of the revision petitioner because it stands proved that he escaped from the scene with the bus seeing the death of the cyclist at his hand. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, including the long lapse of years since the date of accident and the circumstances of the accused, I feel that some modification can be made in the sentence. The sentence under Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be reduced to a short term of simple imprisonment for three months. So also the sentence under Section 279 IPC can be reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. Of course the major offence is one under Section 304(A) IPC. The accident occurred in the year 1993, when the revision petitioner was of the young age of 26. The trial court has already suspended his licence for a reasonable period. In the above circumstances, I feel that rigorous imprisonment for six months will be the adequate sentence in this case. Accordingly, I find that with modification in sentence, this revision petition can be allowed in part.
12. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part, confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner, but modifying the sentence as follows:
(a) The sentenced imposed by the courts below under Section 304(A) IPC will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(b) The sentenced imposed by the courts below under Section 279 IPC will stand reduced to simple imprisonment for three months.
(c) The sentenced imposed under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, will stand reduced to simple imprisonment for one month.
(d) The sentences will run concurrently.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence within one month from this date. If he fails to surrender as directed, the trial court shall take immediate steps to enforce the sentence.
Sd/-P.UBAID JUDGE MJL