Allowed

P.L.Mathew v. S.I.of Police,City Traffic P.Station,Kzd

Kerala HC31 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2432/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging convictions for rash and negligent driving causing hurt. The court quashed the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the appellant, noting the prosecution witnesses failed to clearly establish the driver's negligence and the scene inspection report was insufficient without the accompanying witness examination.

What did the court decide?

The judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of the offences charged with the benefit of doubt.

P.L.Mathew Vs S.I.of Police,City Traffic P.Station,Kzd — 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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2432 of 2004 (D)

¶6

CRA.107/2001 of ADDL.D.C. KOZHIKODE-III CC.188/1995 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

P.L.MATHEW S/O.LOOKA, PONNAMPARAYIL HOUSE, ATHIYODI AMSOM, KOORACHUNDU KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM

¶10

SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

S.I. OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEEMA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

Crl.R.P.No. 2432 of 2004

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 188/1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode. The petitioner was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337of the Indian penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case is as follows:- On 18.4.1994 at about 12.10 p.m. the accused drove a bus bearing registration No.KRZ 4773 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along the Kozhikode-Kannur Road from south to north and in front of the Elathur Fish Market and dashed against a bus bearing No.KL-13A-3868, which was coming from north to south along the same road. Due to the hit, CWs 2 to 4, who were passengers in the bus sustained hurt. Thereby the accused committed the offences charged.

¶23

The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14 and marked Exts.P1 to P17 documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After trial, the Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the charges against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

¶24

Crl.R.P.2432/04 - : 2 :-

¶25

imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 1000/-, in default of payment of which, the petitioner was to undergo one more month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 500/with a default sentence of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. If the fine amount was realised, ` 750/- each was directed to be paid to PWs 2 and 7 as compensation. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.107/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who confirmed the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for one month each for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC upholding the fine imposed, with a default sentence of 10 days and 5 days simple imprisonment respectively. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below. When the matter was taken up today, none appears for the petitioner.

¶26

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The contention of the petitioner as available from the judgments of the courts below and the Criminal Revision Petition is that there is no evidence to find the petitioner guilty of

¶28

Crl.R.P.2432/04 - : 3 :-

¶29

rashness and negligence so as to convict him and there is no proper identification of the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle concerned. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has, through the evidence of PWs 2 and 7, conclusively proved the guilt of the petitioner.

¶30

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

¶31

At the outset I note that a reading of the judgment of the Magistrate, the same gives the impression that the Magistrate has proceeded to consider not whether the prosecution has proved their case, but whether the accused disproved the allegations raised by the prosecution. In fact what has been considered in the judgment of the Magistrate is whether the contentions of the accused are correct or not. That should have been done only after first discussing the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the guilt of the petitioner.

¶32

In this case, the only witnesses, who deposed in favour of the prosecution case in full are PWs 2 and 7. Of course they have identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. But their evidence does not inspire confidence in me on the question as to whether the accident occurred because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. All what

¶33

Crl.R.P.2432/04 - : 4 :-

¶34

PW2 stated is that the reason for the accident is the carelessness of the driver. PW7 only says that the reason for the accident is over speed of the bus driven by the petitioner. They do not describe how the accident happened and what was the negligence of the petitioner. The scene mahazar in this case as admitted by the courts below, is not at all of any assistance to decide the question of negligence on the part of the petitioner. The same does not state the position of the buses at the time of the accident. It does not state the exact spot where the accident occurred. The person, who assisted in preparing the scene mahazar was not examined at all. It is not known as to what is the extent of his knowledge of the accident. Therefore, the scene mahazar cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle as the reason for the accident. It is further clear that four vehicles were involved in the accident. All the four vehicles were also damaged in the accident as per the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioner should have been given the benefit of doubt, insofar as there is no clear evidence to find that the

¶35

Crl.R.P.2432/04 - : 5 :-

¶36

petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle as a cause for the accident. In the above circumstances, I

¶37

set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquit the petitioner of the offences charged against him, giving him benefit of doubt. This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as above.

¶38

sdk+

¶39

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶40

///True copy///

¶41

P.A. to Judge

P.L.Mathew v. S.I.of Police,City Traffic P.Station,Kzd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.L.Mathew v. S.I.of Police,City Traffic P.Station,Kzd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.T.Antony Vs Smt. Raji, the Revenue Divisional Officer

Janardhanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran.M. Vs V.N. Jethendran

Sreebala Developers & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.Ajithkumar

Manu Gopalan Vs State of Kerala