Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34960
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SUNILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 1155/2017
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR, SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL, SMT.RESHMI JACOB, SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN, SRI.P.VISHNU PAZHANGANAT
Conviction for rash and negligent driving upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony, with the sentence modified to two months imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304-A - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 - Criminal Revision Petition against conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death - Conviction upheld; sentence modified to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- - Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses established the accused's identity and negligent driving. (Paras 1, 4, 35)
(B) Identification of Accused - Witnesses who had no prior acquaintance with the accused can still identify him in court if their testimony is consistent and unchallenged. (Paras 16, 22)
(C) Rash and Negligent Driving - Speed alone does not constitute negligence; however, in this case, the ambulance was driven in a manner that endangered human life, leading to a fatal accident. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The accused, while driving an ambulance, collided with a jeep and another car, resulting in the death of a passenger and injuries to others. The accused was found guilty of driving without a valid license. (Paras 2, 34)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony and evidence of the accident's circumstances. (Paras 34, 35)
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence were justified based on the evidence presented. (Para 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence of eyewitnesses was credible and established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Revision Petition allowed in part; conviction sustained, sentence modified.
ORDER
[Crl.Revision Petition No.1155 of 2017]
Dated : 20th November, 2024 This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.191 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, against the judgment dated 31.8.2017 partly allowing the said appeal, by confirming the conviction under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act, for short)
and modifying the sentence passed against the revision petitioner.
2. The prosecution case is that on 16.9.2012 at about 3.15 p.m., the accused being the driver of the ambulance bearing registration No. KL-22- 2388 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along the Kulamavu - Thodupuzha public road and when it reached Ayyakkad -Nadukani, it hit against the jeep, which came in opposite direction, bearing registration No.KL-6-9234, in which PW1, his wife and others were travelling and thereafter, hit against another car, which came from behind the jeep. As a result of the incident, the wife of PW1 sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries, while PW1 sustained minor injuries. It is also alleged that the accused did not have valid driving licence, at the time of the incident.
3. The evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 to11 and documentary evidence Exts. P1 to P13. No evidence was adduced by the accused. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of all those offences and sentenced him to undergo various terms of punishment including simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC . In appeal, while sustaining the conviction, the sentence under Section 304-A was reduced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A . Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the Appellate Court, he preferred this revision, raising various grounds.
4. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following:
Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as confirmed and modified by the Sessions Judge, under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 3 (1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the revision petitioner is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised in the Revision Petition?
5. Heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Smt.Maya M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The point:- The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would argue that in this case there is no proper identification of the accused. Further, according to him, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving rash and negligent driving by the accused, that none of the witnesses have identified the vehicle involved in the accident, that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and that, the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence. In the light of the above grounds, he prayed for allowing the revision petitioner and for acquitting the accused. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that from the evidence of PWs 2 to 6, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused. Therefore, according to her, there is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and she therefore, argued for dismissing the revision Petition.
7. PW1 is the husband of the deceased, as also a passenger in the jeep involved in the accident. He would swear that on 16.9.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. while he along with his wife and three others were travelling in a jeep towards Painavu, an ambulance came in the opposite direction and hit against the jeep. In the incident his wife died and he got injured. However, according to him, he does not know the reason for the incident. He also does not know the driver of the ambulance as well as its number. Howeve
