SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Ker) 49

Judges : U.L.BHAT
JAYAMOHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.P. No. 237 of 1979
Decided On : 03/06/1981
Advocates Appeared :
Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair; V.N. Achutha Kurup; S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai; G. Sadasivan Nair; For Petitioner Public Prosecutor; For Respondent

The judgment emphasized the principles of double jeopardy, issue estoppel, and the admissibility of evidence in subsequent trials.

Headnote:

Rash and Negligent Driving - Offences under S.279 and 304-A IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.279 and 304-A IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the identity of the driver, the condition of the lorry, and the circumstances of the accident. The court also considered the application of S.300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel. The judgment emphasized the principles of double jeopardy, issue estoppel, and the admissibility of evidence in subsequent trials.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner was convicted for offences under S.279 and 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a woman. The prosecution presented evidence of the accident, the condition of the lorry, and witness testimonies. The revision petitioner contested the sufficiency of evidence and raised issues related to the previous trial and the application of S.300 of the Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence sufficient to establish the identity of the driver and the rash and negligent driving. The court analyzed the application of S.300 of the Code and the doctrine of issue estoppel, ultimately concluding that the conviction against the revision petitioner should stand.

Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence, the application of S.300 of the Code, and the doctrine of issue estoppel in relation to a previous trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of double jeopardy, issue estoppel, and the admissibility of evidence in subsequent trials. The court held that the conviction should stand based on the evidence presented, despite the application of issue estoppel.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition to the extent of reducing the sentence of imprisonment to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court, considering the critical medical condition of the revision petitioner.

Judgment :-

1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum in C. C. No. 23 of 1978 for offences under S.279 and 304-A IPC. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. No separate sentence was awarded under S.279 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1978 filed by him before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, was unsuccessful. Hence the revision.

2. The Circle Inspector of Police, City Traffic Station, Trivandrum, laid charge against the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that on 19 10 1977 at about 5.45 a.m. he drove Lorry KLE. 3828 along the public road leading from Kuriyathi to Manakkad in such a rash and negligent way as to endanger human life and hit a lady by name Retnamma as a result of which she was knocked down and the front left tyre of the lorry ran over her crushing her skull. The Lorry was stopped and the revision petitioner as well as two others, viz., pws. II and 12, who were sitting in the cabin of the vehicle ran away. Retnamma's son, pw. 1 and cousin pw. 5 rushed to the scene. On a request made, the police van was sent from the City Traffic Police Station. Retnamma was removed to the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum where the Doctor in the Casuality examined her at 6.45 a.m and she was found to be dead. He sent Ext. P6 intimation to the Medical College Police Station. At 8 a.m. pw. 1 went to the Fort Police Station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place and gave Ext. P1 information on the basis of which the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case as Crime No. 350 of 1977 against the driver of the lorry under Ext. P12 FIR. for offences under S.279 and 304-A IPC. At 8.15 a.m. pw 5 went to the Medical College Police Station and gave the information on the basis of which the Head Constable attached to that police station, pw. 10, registered a case as Crime No. 845 of 1977 under Ext. P6 FIR. Both the cases were transferred to the City Traffic Police Station where Crime No. 350 of 1977 was reregistered as Crime No. 385 of 1977. The case registered in the Medical College Police Station was dropped. pw. 15 took up the investigation. He held inquest over the dead body, questioned pws. 2 to 4 and others during the inquest and. prepared Ext. P13 inquest report. On the same day he prepared Ext. P2 scene mahazar and also inspected the lorry which was still near the scene of occurrence. The lorry had no fitness certificate. The driver had no licence. Ext. P14 is the inspection report prepared by Joint RTO. Postmortem was conducted by the Doctor, pw 7. The revision petitioner surrendered on 24101977 and he was arrested and released on bail. The lorry was released on the request of the owner, pw. 13 on the bond executed by pw. 14. A plan was got prepared from the Village Officer. The witnesses were questioned and after completing the investigation the charge was laid. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on Exts. P1 to P15 and M.Os 1 to 3. The defence examined one witness. The learned trial Magistrate upheld the prosecution case and the same was accepted by the learned Appellate Judge.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended at the outset that the evidence adduced in the case was wholly insufficient to establish the identity of the driver of the lorry and to establish that the driver was rash and negligent and caused the impact which took the life of Retnamma. There is no dispute that this particular lorry KLE. 3828 hit Retnamma and after she fell down the vehicle ran over her. The evidence of the Doctor, pw. 7 in the light of the Post-mortem certificate, Ext. P3, shows that she had sustained several extensive injuries, which would have been caused as a result of the impact and the running over. There is also no dispute that the injuries and the death were the d









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top