Conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304A upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; sentence modified but conviction confirmed.

O R D E R

In this revision, the revision petitioner assails the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ).

2. Heard both sides.

3. Prosecution case is that on 22.03.2010 at about 12.15 pm. the accused drove a bus bearing Registration No.KL-13- K/9900 through the Public road near Stadium Complex, Kannur in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and knocked down a scooterist named Vishnu Namboodiri, causing fatal injuries to him. The victim succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 46(1)(a) r/w Section 177 of .

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. Accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 46(1) (a) r/w Section 177 of . Challenging the conviction and sentence though the accused preferred Crl.A.No.81/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under and 304A of .

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision challenging its legality, propriety and validity.

6. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC needs any interference by this Court.

7. It is a well settled position of law that the scope under the revision against the concurrent finding of fact is very much limited. Ordinarily, revisional court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless the finding of the court whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

8. The evidence on record would show that on 22.03.2010 at about 12.15 p.m the bus bearing Registration No. KL-13-K/9900 hit the Scooter bearing Registration No.KL-7- M/6583 ridden by the victim at the road mentioned in Ext.P3 scene mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer.

9. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident, the rider of the scooter Vishnu Namboodiri namely the father of PW1 died. Ext.P2 is the inquest report of the victim. Ext.P5 is the wound certificate. Ext.P6 is the postmortem report. Exts.P2, P5 and P6 coupled with the evidence of PW11 doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Vishnu Namboodiri would show that the victim died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 22.03.2010.

10. PW1 who is the son of the deceased Vishnu Namboothiri, testified that upon receiving information about the accident, he reached at the hospital; that his father died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement given by him.

11. The prosecution case that at the time of accident, the victim Vishnu Namboodiri was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-7-M/6583 is not disputed by the accused. Like wise, the fact that the bus bearing Reg.No. KL-13-K/9900 hit the scooter ridden by the victim is also not seriously disputed. The evidence on record would show that the accident occurred on a public road near the stadium complex Kannur, through which buses were not permitted to be plied by the Regional Transport Authority.

12. The main argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who drove the offending bus at the t