Allowed

Robertlal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021Crl.Rev.Pet/1646/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Kerala quashed the conviction and sentence of an accused driver following a bus accident. The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove negligence beyond doubt as witnesses failed to establish the driver was driving rashly or negligently, leading to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner found not guilty of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC and acquitted. Bail bond cancelled and petitioner set at liberty.

Robertlal Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1646 OF 2010

¶6

CRA 296/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CC 347/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAKADA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

ROBERTLAL, S/O ENANEEZAR PUTHAN VEEDU, KUZHINJAKALAVILLA,, WILAMAMOODU, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL, VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUNIL MAURYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF, KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.PP.M.S.BREEZ

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

CRRP No.1646/2010

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the accused in CC

¶20

No. 347 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 296 of 2008 on

¶21

the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The

¶22

offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, “the IPC”).

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.02.2001 at 8 pm, the accused drove a KSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along the Thachottukavu - Malayinkeezhu road and while so, the front left side of the KSRTC bus dashed against a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL 01 H 9498, ridden by PW6 along with one Jayakumari and her

¶24

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶25

..3..

¶26

daughter Lakshmi on its pillion and as a

¶27

result of which, PW6 and Lakshmi fell towards the left side of the road and Jayakumari fell

¶28

towards the right side of the road and the speedy bus ran over the body of Jayakumari and she succumbed to the injuries later, while undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram at 8.30 pm on the same day itself. Lakshmi, the child of the deceased also sustained injuries in the very same accident.

¶29

On the appearance of the accused, after having heard both sides, the trial court framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC. The charge was read over, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

¶30

During the trial, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P12 on prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section

¶31

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶32

..4..

¶33

313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. When he

¶35

was called upon to enter on his defence, no evidence was adduced.

¶36

On appreciation of the evidence, by its judgment dated 13.03.2008, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to

¶37

pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively for the offences punishabled under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and in default of payment fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC.

¶38

Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 296 of 2008 and the appellate court, by its judgment dated

¶39

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶40

..5..

¶41

27.02.2010, dismissed the appeal confirming

¶42

the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused is before this Court in revision.

¶43

Heard Sri.Sunil Mauryan, the learned counsel

¶44

for the revision petitioner; and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶45

PW5, one of the persons allegedly present at the scene of occurrence, lodged Ext.P1 statement before the police stating that on 20.02.2001 at at 7.45 hrs, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.TN 169 dashed against the bike ridden

¶46

by PW6 along with one Jayakumari and her child, Lakshmi, on its pillion. PW5 stated that the accident took place as a result of the carelessness on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident took place at the public road in front of Malayinkeezhu

¶47

Bank Auditorium on the Thachottukavu - Malayinkeezhu road. Ext.P6 mahazar would show

¶48

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶49

..6..

¶50

that place of occurrence is on the Thachottukavu – Malayinkeezhu road, which lies on east west direction. The accident spot is on the northern side of the road. It is clear

¶51

that the KSRTC driver was maintaining his left side while he was proceeding from

¶52

Thachottukavu to Malayinkeezhu junction on the date of occurrence and the accident spot, as

¶53

is evident from Ext.P6, is on the northern side of the road. The road at the accident

¶54

place is having a width of 5 m and 55 cm. Ext.P6 would further indicate that there is a footpath having a width of 1 m and 25 cm on the northern side and similarly a footpath having a width of 2 m and 5 cm on the southern side. The rider was proceeding in front of the bus. Going by the evidence of PW6, it is clear

¶55

that he was trying to avoid a cable pit in the road and when he applied brake, the KSRTC bus, which was proceeding from the back side of the motorcycle, dashed against it. It is clear

¶56

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶57

..7..

¶58

from the circumstances that the left back tyre of the bus went over the deceased. There is nothing to indicate that the accident was after overtaking the motorcycle by the accused. No evidence was adduced by PWs 5 and 6 to show that the accused made an attempt to overtake the motorcycle at the time of accident. PW6 admitted, when he was examined in box, that he had applied brake to avoid a cable pit in the road. The occurrence took place at 8 pm. No evidence was adduced by the witnesses to prove the source of light available at the spot to witness the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. PW5 has also not deposed about the source of light at the scene of occurrence at 8 pm. PW6, the rider of the motorcycle, was riding the motorcycle in front of the KSRTC bus. He had no opportunity to witness the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. The only thing he could ascertain is that the

¶59

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶60

..8..

¶61

bus dashed against the motorcycle when he stopped the vehicle in front of a cable pit in the road. Unless and until positive evidence

¶62

is adduced to prove negligence, it is not sufficient to enter a finding that the accused drove the vehicle on the date of occurrence in

¶63

a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the prosecution.

¶64

On a perusal of the evidence let in by PW1, it is seen that he has put signature in Ext.P1 inquest report. There is nothing on record to prove negligence on the part of the accused. PW2, one of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW3 is only a witness in Ext.P2 kycheet. PW4 is a signatory in Ext.P5 mahazar. PW5, who lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement before the police has not stated anything touching the rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW6 was examined before the court. However, he admitted in

¶65

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶66

..9..

¶67

chief examination that he made an attempt to stop the vehicle in front of a cable pit. In his chief examination, he did not say that the

¶68

accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. PW7 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Jayakumari, 37 years, and issued Ext.P7 Postmortem Certificate. PW8 is a signatory in Ext.P6 scene mahazar. PW9 is the investigating officer, who conducted investigation in this case. He has also not spoken anything regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused on the date of occurrence. According to him, he conducted investigation in this case and filed final report. PW10 prepared Ext.P10 scene plan and submitted before the court. PW11, the Regional Transport Officer, examined the offending vehicle and issued Ext.P12 certificate. Based on the above shabby evidence, the trial court convicted and

¶69

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶70

..10..

¶71

sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC. Going by the evidence of

¶72

PW5 and PW6, this Court is not in a position to find any of the ingredients of the offences contemplated under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC. The offences are not proved beyond doubt. This is a case, where the accused was convicted by the trial court, which was later confirmed by the appellate court without any evidence.

¶73

10.Judged by the above standards, this Court is

¶74

of the view that both the trial court and the appellate court convicted and sentenced the accused without considering the legal aspects involved. Thus, the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court, which was later confirmed in appeal, are irregular, illegal and improper.

¶75

In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioner/accused is

¶76

CRRP No.1646/2010

¶77

..11..

¶78

found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC and he is acquitted thereunder. Cancelling his bail bond, this Court directs that he be set at liberty. If any amount is deposited pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the same shall be released to the revision petitioner/accused in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGE

Bka/06.01.2020

Robertlal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robertlal 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

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Ramar Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Three Star Exporters Vs Shipping Corporation of India

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala