Dismissed

T.Yesudas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1716/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death, the court distinguished a cited precedent on facts. Finding no perversity in evidence appreciation and no excess in sentencing, the court dismissed the petition, upholding judgments below.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

T.Yesudas Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1716 of 2004 (D)

¶6

CRA.287/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.8/1997 of J.M.F.C.,AMBALAPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

¶8

T.YESUDAS, S/O. THAKAPPAN, VETTUKADU VEEDU, CHOOZHAM PANCHAYATH WARD NO.2 VILAVANKODU TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.GOPU

¶10

SRI.G.JAYAKUMAR

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT::

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATOOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

================== Crl.R.P.No. 1716 of 2004

¶17

================== Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2012 O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 8/1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. He was prosecuted under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶19

The prosecution case is as follows:- On 22.9.1996, at about 5.45 a.m., the accused drove vehicle bearing registration No. TN-07-N-9176, of Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Kollam-Alappuzha NH 47 road from south to north in over speed and at a place east of Sree Kuruttubhagavathi temple in Ward No.I of Purakkad Panchayat in Thottappaly muri, Purakkad village, caused the vehicle to hit against one Rajesh, who was pulling a cart along the road from south to north, as a result of which, Rajesh fell down on the road sustaining injuries, to which, he succumbed at the Medical College Hospital at 6.15 a.m. on the same day. It is also alleged that the accused failed to render medical aid to the injured and thereby the accused committed the offences charged against him.

¶20

C.R.P.1716/04 - : 2 :-

¶21

The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and passed

¶22

the following order regarding sentence;

¶23

“Accused is found guilty of the offences u/s. 279 and 304(A) IPC and sec.134(a) r/w.187 of M.V. Act and he is convicted thereunder. Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months u/s. 279 IPC and to undergo S.I. for 1 (one) year u/s.304(A) IPC and he is also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 (one) month u/s.134(a) r/w.187 of M.V.Act. The sentence will run concurrently.”

¶24

The petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.287/2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Alappuzha, who confirmed the conviction and the sentence dismissing the appeal. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶25

The petitioner submits that there is no reliable evidence to convict the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the deposition of the so-called eye witnesses was contradictory in nature and that could not have been believed for convicting the petitioner. The petitioner submits that if the prosecution case is correct, the bus should have hit on the back of Rajesh, but the Medical evidence does not show any injuries on account of the bus hitting on the back side of Rajesh. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was absolutely no possibility of the accident having happened the way the prosecution sought to prove. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in

¶26

C.R.P.1716/04 - : 3 :-

¶27

Abu v. State of Kerala , 1982 (1) ILR (Kerala Series) 359, wherein, according to the petitioner, in identical circumstances, this Court had acquitted an accused.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the facts themselves speak to the fact that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. He points out that admittedly both the petitioner and the deceased Rajesh were travelling in the same direction. Admittedly, the bus hit from behind. The scene mahazar shows that the road was a straight road with visibility to a considerable distance. Therefore, when the petitioner was coming from behind, the petitioner could have either stopped the vehicle or avoided collision by overtaking through the right. The petitioner did neither, but hit the deceased. It is pertinent to note that after hitting the deceased, the petitioner did not stop the vehicle but sped away. The eye witnesses also spoke to the occurrence and the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner are not material as regards the manner, in which, the accident happened, is the contention raised.

¶29

C.R.P.1716/04 - : 4 :-

¶30

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶31

I am of opinion that on the admitted facts, the accident could not have happened, but for the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner and the deceased were travelling from south to north. The scene mahazar shows that the road is a straight road with considerable visibility for a considerable distance. Of course, the accident occurred at 5.45 a.m. in the early hours of the morning. If the petitioner was driving the vehicle carefully, the petitioner would have either stopped the vehicle on seeing the cart and the deceased or would have overtaken through right side without hitting the cart and the boy. The very fact that the petitioner hit

¶32

the cart shows sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner. The alleged discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses will not render the above facts wrong in any manner whatsoever.

¶33

The medical evidence also cannot disprove such facts. In addition to that, natural eye witnesses have spoken to the occurrence of the accident, which, according to them, was on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. In any event, I am of opinion that I am unable to find

¶34

C.R.P.1716/04 - : 5 :-

¶35

any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. In exercise of my jurisdiction under 397 of the Cr.P.C. I can interfere with the judgments of the courts below only if the appreciation of evidence is perverse and I cannot reappreciate the evidence as if I am sitting in appeal over the judgments of the courts below. Regarding the judgment quoted by the petitioner, I am of opinion that the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I fully agree with the conviction entered by the courts below.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a fervent plea for reducing the sentence. I could not persuade myself to hold that the sentences imposed by the courts below are in any way excessive calling for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶37

sdk+

¶38

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶39

///True copy///

¶40

P.A. to Judge

¶41

C.R.P.1716/04 - : 6 :-

T.Yesudas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Yesudas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagesh Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh M. Vs Shibu, S/O.Rajan

Vasu Vs Radhakrishna Kurup

K.v.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Moidu @ Manu Vs State of Kerala