IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence in driving is established through eyewitness testimony; mere error of judgment does not absolve liability under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.955/2011 on the file of the Court of Session, Alappuzha challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC; Section 134 (a)(b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vechicles Act, 1988 (the M.V.Act) and Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The prosecution case is that on 23/10/2009 at 11:45 a.m., the accused drove lorry bearing registration no.KL- 07/AG-7570 through the Alappuzha - Ernakulam National Highway from north to south in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when he reached near Arthunkal bypass, the lorry dashed against the rear side of the car bearing registration no.KL-37/6977 which had been stopped at the traffic signal. The accused lost control of his vehicle and he knocked down Poojalakshmi Pai, the daughter of PW1. Thereafter, the lorry dashed against the electric and traffic signal post resulting in causing damages to the tune of Rs. 45,526/- to the KSEB. The accused neither informed the police about the incident nor took Poojalakshmi Pai to the hospital. Poojalakshmi Pai thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 31/10/2009 at 12:45 p.m. while undergoing treatment. Hence as per the final report, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

3. Crime no.891/2009, Cherthala Traffic police station, that is, Ext.P10 FIR was registered by PW14, the then Sub Inspector, Traffic Unit, Cherthala police station based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. The investigation was conducted by PW13 and PW14 and the latter on completion of the investigation submitted the final report/charge sheet before the jurisdictional magistrate.

4. On appearance of the accused, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session, Alappuzha. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.955/2011 and thereafter made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, for trial and disposal.

5. When the accused appeared before the court, a charge under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) IPC; 134 (a)(b) of the M.V Act and 139 of the Electricity Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

7. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304A IPC, Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and Section 139 of the Electricity Act. Hence he has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC; to simple imprisonment for two months and to a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304A IPC; to a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act and in default to simple imprisonment for te