The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission in the charge to mention Section 304A of the IPC and the words ‘rashly or negligently’ would not render the conviction illegal, as the appellant was given enough notice about the allegations constituting the charge against him. The court also clarified the application of Section 221 of the Code in cases involving use of motor vehicles and offences under Section 304 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). He was tried for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. He was convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC.

2. The Circle Inspector of Police, City Traffic (West) Police Station, Ernakulam filed final report in Crime No.9735 of 2014 of the said police station with the following allegations: At about 12.50 p.m. on 08.11.2014 the appellant drove the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-02-AE-6673 along Ernakulam Paramara Road from north to south and while negotiating the bus to enter the Banerji Road, it hit against the handrails separating the footpath from the road. Body part of the bus tore off and that hit against Sri.Velayudhan, who was waiting on the road side. He got entangled under the bus and suffered serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries. Alleging that the appellant drove the bus with the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death of passengers or pedestrians, he was charged for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC.

3. At the trial before the court below PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exts.P1 to 36 were marked, besides Ext.C1. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances appeared in evidence against him. He maintained that he was innocent. No evidence was let in on his side. The court below, after appreciating and analysing the evidence, found that it was the appellant, who was driving the bus at the time of occurrence and his rash and negligent driving was the proximate cause for dashing the bus against the handrails on the side of the road entering the footpath and hitting against the deceased, resulting in his death. By holding that the evidence tendered by the prosecution proved beyond doubt the identity of the appellant as well as his rash and negligent driving had resulted in the death of Sri.Velayudhan, the court below convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. The appellant challenges the said findings in this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The facts that the bus bearing Reg.No. KL-02-AE-6673 dashed against the handrails on the side of the road and it ran over to the footpath at Paramara Road -Banerji Road junction at 12.15 p.m. on 08.11.2014, resulting in damaging the handrails and causing injuries to Sri.Velayudhan, a pedestrian, are not in dispute. Sri.Velayudhan succumbed to the injuries also is not in dispute.

6. Sri.Velayudhan was immediately taken to the General Hospital, Ernakulam where he was pronounced dead. PW12 is a senior civil police officer. He was on duty on 08.11.2014 near the place of occurrence. Hearing a hue and cry he looked to see the bus in question stopped at the place of occurrence. He rushed to the spot. PW11 is a civil police officer. He was on traffic duty at the place of occurrence itself. He deposed that on hearing sound and pandemonium he looked to the spot and saw the bus stopped ramming against the handrails and passing over the footpath. People alarmed that one person was entangled under the bus. He found a person below the bus and hence he asked the driver to move the bus behind. He, with the help of onlookers, took out the injured. PW12 along with another person took the injured to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. PW12 further deposed that the doctor who examined Sri. Velayudhan pronounced him dead.

7. Ext.P9 is the inquest report prepared by PW14, a Sub Inspector attached to the city traffic police station. PWs 3 and 4 are witnesses to the inquest and attestors to Ext. P9. Ext.P29 is the report of the autopsy, where the extensive nature of the injuries sustained by Sri. Velayudhan and that such injuries resulted in his dea