1. In this criminal revision petition, challenge is to the judgment in Crl.A No.67/2017 of Sessions Court, Kollam, by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused in C.C.No.226/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2007, at around 9.45 am, accused drove a lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 through Kottiyam-Chathannoor public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when the lorry reached at Sithara junction, it hit on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 Thoufik, and thereafter it hit on an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818. In the incident, PW1 who was riding the motorcycle, the autorickshaw driver and the passengers sustained injuries. Two passengers who were travelling in the said autorickshaw succumbed to the injuries. It is also the prosecution case that after the incident, accused did not stop the offending lorry and did not take the injured to the hospital and he left the place without even informing the police about the incident. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P18. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. Accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 134(a) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and he was acquitted of the said offence.

6. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.67/2017 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the conviction against him for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC was confirmed, but the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 337 IPC, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence under Section 338 IPC he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 304A IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

7. Revision petitioner/accused impugns the judgment of conviction and sentence against him contending that there was no rashness or negligence on his part; that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the incident and therefore the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in relying on their evidence.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of the accused; that the trial court and the appellate court have appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence.

9. When this revision petition came up for hearing, there was no representation for the revision petitioner/accused and accordingly, this Court appointed Advocate Sri.Albin T.O, as amicus curiae.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court needs any interference by this Court, we have to bear in mind the well settled principle that the revisional power of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal and unless the finding of court which is under challenge is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the court may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

12. As per the prosecution case, the incident in this case occurred on 11.10.2007 at around 9.45 am. at 'Sithara Junction' in Kottiyam- Chathannoor Public road. It is the prosecution case, that the accused drove the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 through the said road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and it hit on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 and thereafter it hit on an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818 and caused injuries to PW1, and the driver and passengers of the autorickshaw. One passenger named Eugene succumbed to the injuries on 16.10.2007 and another passenger named Prakashi succumbed to the injuries on 12.11.2007 while they were undergoing treatment at the hospital.

13. PW1 is the defacto complainant. He testified that on the fateful day, while he was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 and when he reached at 'Sithara Junction', the lorry driven by the accused hit on his motorcycle; that he sustained serious injuries and he was bed ridden for 1½ years. According to him, the rashness and negligence of the lorry driver was the reason for the accident. He has categorically testified that the accident occurred when the lorry driver tried to overtake his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence tendered by PW1 remains uncontroverted and unchallenged.

14. PW7 testified that he is a witness to the incident; that on 11.10.2007 at around 9.45 am while he was having his tea from a local tea shop at Sithara Junction, he witnessed the incident. According to him the lorry first hit on the motorcycle and thereafter hit on an autorickshaw. He has further testified that he along with the local people rushed to the spot of accident and tried to save the life of the injured. PW7 has also testified that the lorry went to the wrong side of the road and it was due to the rashness and negligence of the lorry driver, the accident occurred. PW7 has also testified that accused was the driver of the lorry which caused the accident.

15. It is an undisputable fact that two passengers of the autorickshaw who sustained grievous injuries in the accident succumbed to the injuries. Exts.P3 and P4 postmortem certificates coupled with the evidence of doctors who were examined as PW4 and PW5 would amply prove that the injured named Eugene and Prakashi sustained grievous injuries in the accident and they succumbed to the injuries.

16. Ext.P11 report would show that there was no mechanical defect to the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179. Exts.P11 to P13 documents would reveal the damages sustained to the three vehicles involved in the accident. Ext.P9 is the scene mahazar. Ext.P9 scene mahazar adds credence to the prosecution case that the lorry which was proceeding from west to east was on the wrong side of the road at the time of accident. It supports the prosecution case that the accident occurred while the lorry driver rashly and negligently tried to overtake another vehicle.

17. On an appreciation of the evidence on record and the materials and upon hearing both sides, this Court finds no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 driven by the accused.

18. Rash driving implies driving with wanton disregard for the safety of others, often accompanied by speedy, overtaking dangerously, ignoring traffic sign etc.

19. The evidence on record would show that the accused drove the lorry bearing registration No.KL01-X-2179 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life through Kottiyam-Chathanoor Public road and when it reached Sithara Junction it hit on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL2-V-1486 ridden by PW1 and thereafter hit on an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL16-C-4818. It also stands proved that PW1 who was the rider of the motor cycle and the passengers of the autorickshaw sustained severe injuries and the two passengers succumbed to the injuries in the accident. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Hence, the conviction of the accused for the said offences stands confirmed.

20. Now, let us see whether the sentence against the accused needs any interference.

21. Rash and negligent driving has become a grave menace in India especially in Kerala. There is significant rise in deaths and injuries caused by rash and negligent driving. Every year thousands of innocent lives are lost due to careless and reckless driving. The law cannot treat such loss casually. Every motor accident leaves behind grieving families. The psychological and mental trauma faced by the victim's families is immeasurable. In a catena of decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the increasing frequency of motor vehicle accidents highlights the need for a stricter approach to act as a deterrent.

22. In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 82], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

                  “13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of Trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.”

23. The sentence imposed by the trial court as modified by the appellate court is not harsh or excessive. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the accused.

                  In the result revision petition stands dismissed.

                  The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence.

                  Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.