Back
K. BABU
Muralidharan Parackalethu House, Mampara,, Perunad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
ORDER :
The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, in C.C.No.261 of 2002 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, in the judgment dated 17.03.2007 in Crl.Appeal. No.281 of 2005. The revision petitioner faces offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him for the above-said offences and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment.
Prosecution Case
2. The accused was the driver of a private bus bearing Regn No. KL-3/A-466. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life through Vadasserikara-Pampa Public Road from east to west on 06.07.2001 at 11.20 am, and the vehicle hit a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/1295 at Murikkayamukku in Perunad Village causing the death of two persons and hurt and grievous hurt to around 26 persons who were travelling in the KSRTC bus.
3. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 30 were examined. The prosecution also proved Exts.P1 to P41.
4. PW1 gave Ext.P1 FIS. He was a traveller in the KSRTC bus. He sustained injuries in
The principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot substitute for proof of negligence in criminal cases, and reliance on inadmissible evidence leads to wrongful conviction.
The absence of key eyewitness testimony undermines the prosecution's case on charges of rash and negligent driving, necessitating acquittal.
Criminal negligence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere occurrence of an accident does not presume rashness or negligence.
The prosecution must prove charges of criminal negligence or rashness beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked in the absence of conclusive evidence.
The principle of res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in cases of negligence, and failure to provide an explanation can lead to adverse findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
