Partly allowed

B.a.Muraleedhara v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/810/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala affirmed the conviction of the appellant for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC, which resulted in deaths and injuries. While upholding the guilt based on strong evidence including witness testimony and vehicle records, the Court exercised its revisional powers to reduce the sentence for Section 304A from two years to one year, directing

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence for Section 304A reduced from two years to one year; all sentences to be undergone concurrently.

B.a.Muraleedhara 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 810 of 2004 (A)

¶6

------------------------------CRA.123/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE CC.124/1998 of JUDL.MAG. OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

B.A.MURALEEDHARA, SON OF B.ANANTHA RAO, MANDYAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.BEKKEL KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)/:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYOLI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC, PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

acd

¶15

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

Crl.R.P. No.810 of 2004

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2012

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The accused in C.C.No.124/98 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyoli, is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The prosecution case is as follows:- On 23.2.1997 the accused drove a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-14/6612 in a rash and negligent manner in great speed through the Kozhikode-Kannur public road. When the bus reached Paloor at 6.30 a.m., the vehicle hit a jeep bearing registration No.KBE 7890. As a result of the accident, CWs 2 to 5 sustained simple as well as grievous injuries and three other passengers, who were thrown away to the road, sustained severe injuries and succumbed to their injuries. Consequently the accused is guilty of the offences charged. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 to prove the prosecution case. There

¶21

Crl. R.P.No.810/04 2

¶22

was no defence evidence. After trial, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days each under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further three months under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The driving licence of the petitioner was suspended for thirty days. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Magistrate, in Criminal Appeal No.123/2001, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc II), Kozhikode. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming both the conviction and the sentence entered by the Magistrate. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶23

The petitioner's contention is that there is no reliable evidence to find the petitioner guilty. According to the petitioner, the depositions of the injured witnesses could not have been relied upon for convicting the petitioner. He also points out that there was no proper identification of the

¶24

¶25

Crl. R.P.No.810/04

¶26

petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was driving the vehicle normally and there was no rash and negligent driving on his part. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even assuming that the petitioner is guilty, the punishment awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences alleged against him.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt with legal and sustainable evidence. He submits that PW1, who was the first informant, gave cogent and convincing evidence regarding the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle and the fact that he was driving the vehicle through the wrong side of the road in an exorbitant speed. Although he was extensively cross examined, nothing could be brought out in cross examination to discredit his evidence. Although some of the other witnesses wilted under cross examination, there was sufficient evidence to prove the rashness and negligence of the petitioner in driving the vehicle in the form of evidence of PW1, which was corroborated by the scene mahazar in full. It is

¶28

¶29

Crl. R.P.No.810/04

¶30

submitted that the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle has also been conclusively proved not only through the evidence of PW1 but also other witnesses as well. In fact, PW9 was the driver of the vehicle up to Kozhikode and he deposed that, thereafter, the petitioner was the driver of the lorry. He was not cross examined by the petitioner on this aspect as well. In addition to that, Goods Vehicle Record (GVR) was proved through Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, which also proved that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, there was very cogent and very reliable evidence to prove the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The rashness and negligence has also been spoken to by all the witnesses convincingly. Ext.P2 scene mahazar and Ext.P4 site plan also show that the accident occurred on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle, which would also go to prove the guilt of the petitioner, is the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy whatsoever, especially in view of the fact that three persons died and several others were seriously injured in the

Crl. R.P.No.810/04

accident.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶35

PW1 deposed that he was standing near the front

¶36

gate of his house on 23.2.1997 at about 6.30 a.m, when he

¶37

saw a lorry proceeding to Kannur and a jeep coming to Kozhikode. The lorry turned to the right and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the jeep ran over a heap of rubbles stored in the road margin resulting in the accident causing the injuries to the injured and the deceased. He gave categoric evidence regarding the identity of the driver as well as the occurrence, which, according to him, was because of the high speed of the lorry coupled with the rashness and negligence in driving the offending vehicle. He deposed that he saw the petitioner driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PW9 deposed that he was the driver of the offending vehicle up to Kozhikode and thereafter, the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. He was not cross examined on this aspect. Further, the Goods Vehicle Record (GVR) was seized under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, which also proved that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. As such, there could not have been any dispute

¶38

Crl. R.P.No.810/04

¶39

¶40

whatsoever on the question that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

¶41

PW1 had categorically asserted that the accident occurred on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle and the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at great speed. This is amply corroborated by Ext.P2 scene mahazar. From the scene mahazar, it is seen that the road at the place of accident was 5.32 metres in width and the scene of the accident is 3.80 metres towards east from the western tar end, which is 1.52 metres towards west from the eastern tar end. The vehicle was proceeding from north to south, which would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accident occurred on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle on the road. Ext.P4 site plan prepared by PW12, the Village Officer also corroborates the same. As such, the accident speaks for itself to the fact that the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The witnesses also stated that the lorry was running at a very high speed. As such, the rashness and negligence of the petitioner in driving the offending vehicle has also been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In the above

¶42

Crl. R.P.No.810/04

¶43

¶44

circumstances, I have no reason to hold that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is demonstrably perverse, without which I cannot interfere with the judgments of the lower courts in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, I confirm the conviction entered by the courts below.

¶45

As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, since three persons died and several persons were grievously hurt on account of the accident, the petitioner does not deserve much sympathy in the matter of punishment as well. But, taking a lenient view, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A to one year simple imprisonment instead of two years. All other sentences would stand. But, I direct that these sentences shall be undergone concurrently.

¶46

The Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶47

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶48

acd

¶49

Crl. R.P.No.810/04 8

B.a.Muraleedhara v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.a.Muraleedhara 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Krishna Pillai Vs Suendra Ravu

Padmalayan Vs State of Kerala

Jayan Vs State of Kerala

The Managing Partner, Mayilvahanam Motors Vs Sri.Radhakrishnan

Chandra Babu D. Vs Sri.Asok Kumar Singh, I.A.S.

Mani C.Kappan Vs India Bank and Another