Prosecution must provide conclusive evidence to prove the accused's guilt in culpable homicide cases; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The accused in S.C. No.1234/2008 on the files of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge as per the judgment dated 10.02.2014. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution case is that, at about 1.40 p.m.on 27.12.2006, the accused had driven a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-11-K-7346, with knowledge that, if the mini lorry so driven carelessly, it would cause death of human beings on the road. The further allegation is that, while driving so, when the mini lorry reached NH-47 Bypass Road from south to north, near Ramco Cement Godown at Marathakkara, the same dashed against a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8-S-5055, driven by one Davis along with one Paul as pillion rider. As a result of the hit, both the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle were thrown away and they sustained injuries. Thereafter, they died in consequence of the accidental injuries. On the said basis, the prosecution alleges commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, by the accused.

5. After completing investigation, Final Report was filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, by the accused. On getting committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur, made over the same to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. During trial, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exts.P1 to 22 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of accused as defence evidence.

6. On analysis of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months default imprisonment was also imposed.

7. While challenging the legality of the verdict of the trial court, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that, in this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to substantiate that, the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-11-K-7346 was driven by the accused, at the time of occurrence and he hit down the motorcycle as alleged by the prosecution. Further, witnesses cited by the prosecution failed to identify the accused as the driver, who had driven the lorry at the time of accident. Despite these facts and in the absence of material evidence to show the complicity of the accused, the trial court wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, the verdict of the trial court would require interference.

8. Dispelling the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that, the evidence of PW3, the owner of the vehicle, to whom Ext.P5 Goods carrier record was issued from the milk company, when the vehicle started with milk for supply, showing the name of the accused as the driver on the date of occurrence, proved the fact that the lorry was driven by the accused at the time of occ