Jolly vs State of Kerala

JOLLY vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 20, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1291265

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1291265
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Mar 20, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/963/2011

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOLLY

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....(kollam) respondent/respondent/complainant: state of kerala represented by its public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. sr.pp.c.n.prabhakaran this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 20.03.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderheard the revision petitioner.2. it is against the concurrent findings of guilt of accused for the offence under sections 279, 304(a) of ipc and 134(a) of motor vehicles act, 1988,and the judgment of conviction, the accused came up, mainly on the reason that there are certain discrepancies that came out at the time of cross- examination of various witnesses, especially pertaining to the time in which the alleged incident happened. it is quite normal that there may be some difference in the time spoken by the different witnesses and it will depend upon the power of perception of the party concerned. necessarily, it cannot be a grave inconsistency and may not besufficient to interfere with the concurrent judgmentof conviction at the revisional stage. it is also submitted that some other minor discrepancies are also there. that is also quite normal and natural by the passage of time. nothing else was brought to thenotice of this court in order to interfere with the alleged findings of guilt of accused for the offence under sections 279, 304 (a) of ipc and 134(a) of motor vehicles act, 1988 and judgment of conviction rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court. the sentence awarded also reflects a proper balance as the vehicle driven by the accused hit against a pedestrian causing very serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries. necessarily, the sentence should reflect a proper balance. the criminal revision petition will stand dismissed accordingly.sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2009 IN CRA NO.143 OF 2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2006 IN CC NO.260 OF 2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PUNALUR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: JOLLY, S/O LAWRENCE, THODIYIVADAKKETHIL VEEDU, PANAYAMKODU, KANJIRAMCODU CHERRY,MULAVANA, KUNDARA. BY ADV SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR.PP.C.N.PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the revision petitioner.

2. It is against the concurrent findings of guilt of accused for the offence under Sections 279, 304

(A) of IPC and 134(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

and the judgment of conviction, the accused came up, mainly on the reason that there are certain discrepancies that came out at the time of cross- examination of various witnesses, especially pertaining to the time in which the alleged incident happened. It is quite normal that there may be some difference in the time spoken by the different witnesses and it will depend upon the power of perception of the party concerned. Necessarily, it cannot be a grave inconsistency and may not be

sufficient to interfere with the concurrent judgment

of conviction at the revisional stage. It is also submitted that some other minor discrepancies are also there. That is also quite normal and natural by the passage of time. Nothing else was brought to the

notice of this court in order to interfere with the alleged findings of guilt of accused for the offence under Sections 279, 304 (A) of IPC and 134(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and judgment of conviction rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court. The sentence awarded also reflects a proper balance as the vehicle driven by the accused hit against a pedestrian causing very serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries. Necessarily, the sentence should reflect a proper balance. The Criminal Revision Petition will stand dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties JOLLY vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan