In a criminal revision petition challenging an order of acquittal in a rash and negligent driving case causing death, the High Court of Kerala found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the Magistrate failed to appreciate evidence properly.
Order of acquittal of the respondent in the rash and negligent driving case is maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 1954 of 2010()
----------------------------------( CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 59/2007, C.C.NO. 220/2004 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, COURT, MANJERI.)
-------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
PANALI HABEEB, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, PANALI HOUSE, MUNDAPPALAM, KONDOTTY AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND STATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. USMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, MANNINKADAVAN HOUSE, KUDUMBIYAN KAVIL, AMAYOOR, KARAKKUNNU.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1954 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner, the de facto
complainant in C.C.220/2004 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate and confirmed by Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.R.P.59/2007. Prosecution case is that on 20/3/2004 at about 7.30 p.m the accused drove bus No.KL-10/C-3999, rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and hit against car No.MH/06-M.1308 driven by deceased Basheer, while it was proceeding along Manjeri-
2
Crmc 1954/10
Kozhikode road at Pullanoor. The bus was proceeding from Manjeri to Kozhikode and the car was proceeding from Kozhikode to Manjeri. Basheer succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution examined eighteen witnesses. Pws.1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case. PW4, a relative of the deceased Basheer, who furnished the information, was not an eye witness. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar and Ext.P3 trip sheet. Pws.6 and 8 are the attestors to Ext.P4 inquest report. Petitioner is the
brother of deceased Basheer. PW9 is the doctor
who examined PW3 and issued Ext.P5 wound
certificate. PW10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW12 is the conductor of the bus. PW13 had conducted postmortem examination and prepared the postmortem certificate. Learned Magistrate on appreciating the evidence found
Crmc 1954/10
3
that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence to find that the incident occurred due to negligent driving of the accused and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence, petitioner filed Crl.R.P.59/2007. The order of the revisional court establish that entire evidence was properly reappreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and found that appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate was proper. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the petition.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Petitioner is entitled to have the order of acquittal setting aside the case of rash driving recounted afresh.
Whether the appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should succeed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PANALI HABEEB
USMAN
STATE OF KERALA
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
