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

2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30686

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
REGHUNATHAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/1521/2010



Advocates:
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.M.S.BREEZ

Clear evidence of negligence is essential for conviction under IPC sections related to rash driving resulting in death or injury.

Headnote:

Negligence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Summary: The court analyzed the provisions concerning rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of negligence. The absence of convincing proof led to the reversal of the initial convictions.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was charged with causing a fatal accident by negligent driving of a bus, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The prosecution claimed he drove recklessly, causing the collision with a motorcycle and an autorickshaw.

Issues: Whether the accused committed the offences of rash and negligent driving leading to death and injury as defined under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that mere involvement in an accident does not equate to culpability unless reckless driving causing the accident can be established.

Final Decision: The conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

ORDER

Dated this the 11th day of November 2020 The revision petitioner was the sole accused in CC No.898 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 170 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam The offences alleged against the accused is punishable under Sections

279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian penal Code.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.10.2001 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused had driven the KSRTC Fast Passenger bus bearing No.T.P.118(KL-15/4263) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life from south to north along the Kollam-Karunagappally National Highway and when it reached the southern side of Kannetty Bridge at Karunagappally, it hit the motorcycle driven by one Sivaprasad with PW3 in the pillion and thereafter hit an autorickshaw driven by PW6 carrying PWs 2 and 4 as passengers and as a result of which Sivaprasad sustained fatal injuries and PWs 2 to 4 and 6 sustained grievous injuries. Sivaprasad succumbed to the injuries later. It is alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and thus the accused had committed the aforesaid offences.

3. During the trial, PWs 1 to 16 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P18 on the prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. For the defence side, DWs 1 to 3 were examined.

4. By the judgment dated 10.03.2008, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for various counts including simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC . The aforesaid substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam for hearing and disposal. By its judgment dated 15.03.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision.

5. Heard Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. PW15 conducted the investigation in this case and filed final report before the trial court. The criminal law was set in motion pursuant to Ext.P12 FIS alleged to have been given by CW1 Dileep. He was not examined as a witness for the prosecution. In fact, Ext.P12 statement was not proved through the person who lodged Ext.P12 statement before PW14, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Chavara Police Station. On the strength of Ext.P12 statement, PW14 registered Ext.P13 FIR against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC . As part of investigation, PW15 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P14 scene mahazar. Ext.P14 scene mahazar prepared by PW15 on 27.10.2001 at 1.30 p.m is an important piece of evidence to prove the prosecution case. The place of occurrence as per Ext.P14 scene mahazar is on the southern side of the Kannetty Bridge at Karunagappally on the Kollam- Karunagappally National Highway. The width of the road at the place of occurrence as per Ext.P14 scene mahazar is 7 meters. The nature and lie of the road at the scene of occurrence is straight and without any curve on south north direction. The bus was proceeding from south to north through the National Highway and while so, one bike and an autorickshaw were proceeding towards Kollam on north south direction. It is

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top