The High Court of Kerala dismissed this criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The court held that the lower courts' appreciation of evidence, supported by eye witness testimony and physical damage analysis, was not perverse.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 176 of 2012 ()
-----------------------------CRA.195/2010 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT -1, THRISSUR CC.959/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
JAYAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAN,THANDISSERY HOUSE, ANTHIKAD THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.M.R.ARUN SRI.JOSE SEBASTIAN VAZHAPPILLY
SMT.PRIYA. H.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R ADV. SRI. A.J. JOSE - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
acd
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
Crl.R.P. No.176 of 2012
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2012
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 959/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304(A) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.R.P.No.176/12 2
Exts.P1 to P10 documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence adduced, the Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and acquitted him of the offence under Section 337 of the IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section of the 304(A) of the IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.195/2010 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thrissur, who dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.
Crl.R.P.No.176/12
3
the scene mahazar as well as the report of the vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the motor cycle was coming along the main road from the north to south. The road had a width of 6.11 metres. The petitioner was driving the mini lorry along a pocket road on the eastern side of the road and entering the main road through which the injured were travelling. As per the scene mahazar, the scene of occurrence is 3.4 metres from the western tar end and therefore, the accident occurred almost on the middle of the road. If that be so, the petitioner was riding slowly and coming into the main road and the visibility in the road was up to 25 metres. Therefore, for the negligence of the motor cycle rider, the accident would not have occurred, is the contention raised. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is supported by the damages reported by the Motor Vehicle Inspector also. It is further contended that the motor cycle rider did not have a valid licence.
Crl.R.P.No.176/12 4
going by the scene mahazar and the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the mini tipper lorry by the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor since the road admittedly has a width of 6.11 metres, 3.4 metres from the western tar end of the road is within the right side of the motorcycle rider. He points out that, admittedly, the petitioner was entering a main road from a pocket road. Therefore, going by the traffic rules, the petitioner was duty bound to stop the vehicle before entering the main road to ascertain whether any vehicle was coming along the main road. If he had stopped the vehicle, when admittedly the visibility was upto 25 metres, he would certainly have noticed the motorcycle and could have avoided the accident easily. The circumstances proved would go to show that he entered the main road in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. He submit that the damages noted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was all on the front side of the vehicle, which would also go to show that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner.
5
Crl.R.P.No.176/12
witness namely, PW2. He asserted before the Court that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by the petitioner. Although he was cross examined by the petitioner, his evidence could not be shaken. Apart from the same, admittedly, the petitioner was entering a main road from a pocket road. Therefore, as per the traffic rules, the petitioner was duty bound to stop the vehicle before entering the main road. The main road had width of 6.11 metres and as per the scene mahazar the accident occurred 3.4 metres away from the western tar end. Therefore, the motor cycle rider was riding on his correct side. The damages noted on the petitioner's vehicle are all on the front right side of the vehicle. These evidence would clearly spell out rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.
lower courts have erred in appreciating the evidence adduced before the courts. I can interfere with the judgments of the courts below in a revision under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code only if the appreciation of evidence by
Crl.R.P.No.176/12 6
the lower courts is demonstrably perverse. There is absolutely no perversity whatsoever in appreciation of evidence by the lower courts. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
Crl.R.P.No.176/12 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appreciation of evidence by lower courts in a motor vehicle accident case resulting in conviction under offences of rash and negligent driving was demonstrably perverse.
Whether the accused is liable for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code for causing a fatal road accident.
Whether the revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence by the Magistrate and Additional District Sessions Judge deserves to be allowed.
JAYAN
STATE OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
