High Court confirmed conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death but reduced sentence from six to three months imprisonment under Section 304A IPC due to lapse of eighteen years.
Conviction confirmed; sentence under Section 304A IPC reduced from six months to three months imprisonment.
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 P.UBAID
TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 120/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC)-I, MANJERI DATED 25-08-2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 401/2000 of J.M.F.C., MALAPPURAM DATED 09-02-2005
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-
SHAJIMON, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AMBALAPUTHU HOUSE, VALAMPUR AMSOM, THIRUKKADU DESOM.
BY ADV. SRI. C. RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-
STATE OF KERALA- REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KONDOTTI POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.266/2000) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No. 401 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. He faced prosecution in the
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
2
court below on the allegation that at about 7.45 a.m. on
19.06.2000, he drove the bus No. KL 10C 4131 rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life along the ManjeriKozhikode public road, the bus hit on the jeep No. KL 10A 4856 at Pothuvettippara, causing a major accident, and in the said accident, two passengers in the jeep sustained fatal injuries to which they succumbed on the spot, and some passengers sustained simple and grievous injuries. The police registered the crime on the First Information Statement given by the brother of the deceased lady, and submitted final report in court after investigation.
found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of
3
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
Rs.2,000/- under Section 304A IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each under Section 279 and 338 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/under Section 337 IPC.
09.02.2005, the accused approached the court of Session, Manjeri, with Crl.A. No. 120 of 2005. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Manjeri, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the revision petitioner. Of the fifteen witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 and PW3 to PW5 are the material witnesses. PW2 is the first informant, and he is the brother of the deceased lady. He had not witnessed the accident. PW1 is the driver of
the jeep involved in the accident, and he is also a brother of the lady who died in the accident. PW5 is the daughter of the lady who died in the accident. The prosecution case is that the sister of the jeep driver and also her daughter died in the major accident. PW5 stated in examination in chief that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver but when cross-examined by the defence she stated that she had not in fact seen the driver, and she does not know how the
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
4
accident occurred. PW3 and PW4 are the persons who sustained injuries in the accident but they did not support the prosecution. Thus practically there is only the evidence of PW1 in favour of the prosecution.
Investigating Officer in this case gives an indication as to how the accident must have occurred. PW1 is definite in evidence that while he was driving the jeep No.KL-10-A-4856 with passengers
including his sister and her children, the bus driven by the accused came from the opposite side, being driven rashly and negligently, and the bus hit on the jeep. PW1 identified the
accused as the driver of the bus, and he affirmed in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. His evidence proving the identity of the bus driver stands not challenged. PW1 has no reason to give any false evidence against the accused.
that the road at the place of accident has a width of 8 metres, and the exact spot of accident is 2.31 metres to the tarred road from the northern tar end. The road at the place of accident lies east-west. The jeep was coming from west to east, and the bus was coming from east to west. For the bus to hit on the jeep at a spot 2.31 metres from the northern road margin, the bus must have definitely come to the wrong side. Had it been on the correct side, driven in normal speed, the bus would not have hit on the
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
5
jeep that came from the opposite side keeping the correct side. The accused has no explanation how or why he deviated to the wrong side to hit on the jeep that came from the opposite side.
In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC in C.C.No.401 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram will stand confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. But the sentence imposed by the court below under Section 304(A) IPC will stand modified and reduced to
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4604 of 2006
6
simple imprisonment for three months. The fine sentence imposed by the trial court under the four sections, with the default sentence
thereon, is maintained.
Sd/-
P.UBAID,
Judge
rkj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's finding of rash and negligent driving causing death warrants confirmation of conviction and modification of sentence.
Whether sufficient evidence existed to sustain the accused's conviction for rash driving and causing death.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAJIMON
STATE OF KERALA
P. UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
