Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Roy Kuriakose vs State

Roy Kuriakose vs STATE

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 26, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1344561

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.Rev.Pet/1967/2003

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roy Kuriakose

Respondent

STATE

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice a.muhamed mustaque wednesday, the 26th day of april 2023 / 6th vaisakha, 1945 against the order/judgment in cra 48/2002 of additional sessions judge, north paravur st 205/1998 of judicial first class magistrate court-i, aluva revision petitioner/appellant/accused: roy kuriyakose, aged 43 years, s/o kuriakose, mekkamalil veedu, cherukunnam kara, asamannoor village, perumbavoor. by advs. sri.b.raman pillai sri.anil k.mohammed sri.r.anil sri.delvin jacob mathews sri.george philip sri.raju radhakrishnan respondent/respondent/complainant: state, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. sri.p.g.manu, sr.pp. this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 26.04.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe appellant was a k.s.r.t.c driver, who was convicted for the offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the indian penal code before this court in revision. the appellant is reported to be no more. however, on going through the entire findings, i am of the view that even the conviction cannot be sustained as there was no finding by the court below that he has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing endanger to human. therefore, conviction is also unsustainable. merely for the reason that the vehicle had hit an auto rickshaw it cannot result in conviction unless it is proceeded by a finding that the vehicle was driven in such a manner to endanger the human life. so i have no hesitation to set aside the conviction. i do so and allows the revision as well. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque judge mpm

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 6TH VAISAKHA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 48/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR ST 205/1998 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ROY KURIYAKOSE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O KURIAKOSE, MEKKAMALIL VEEDU, CHERUKUNNAM KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.R.ANIL SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS SRI.GEORGE PHILIP SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PP. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The appellant was a K.S.R.T.C driver, who was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code before this Court in revision. The appellant is reported to be no more. However, on going through the entire findings, I am of the view that even the conviction cannot be sustained as there was no finding by the court below that he has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing endanger to human. Therefore, conviction is also unsustainable. Merely for the reason that the vehicle had hit an auto rickshaw it cannot result in conviction unless it is proceeded by a finding that the vehicle was driven in such a manner to endanger the human life. So I have no hesitation to set aside the conviction. I do so and allows the revision as well. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE mpm

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial