Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34961
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
RAGHUVARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 1366/2016
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH, SRI.K.J.JOSEPH, SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS, SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
For a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove gross negligence, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A - Revision Petition against conviction for causing death by negligence - The prosecution failed to prove gross negligence on the part of the accused driver, who lost control of the vehicle due to the ruckus created by inebriated passengers - The trial and appellate courts' findings were set aside, leading to acquittal. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for causing an accident resulting in the death of four passengers due to alleged rash driving. The incident occurred when the vehicle plunged into a gorge while carrying 12 passengers, some of whom were intoxicated.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not establish gross negligence, as the driver was overwhelmed by the behavior of the intoxicated passengers, which contributed to the accident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented proved gross negligence necessary for conviction under the relevant IPC sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate gross negligence, which was not established in this case.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; the accused was acquitted.
ORDER
[Crl. Revision Petition No.1366 of 2016]
Dated : 20th November, 2024 This Revision Petition has been preferred by the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.94/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad, against the judgment dated 29.7.2016, confirming the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur in C.C.1980/2014 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 279 , 337,338 and 304-A IPC .
2. The prosecution case is that on 20.8.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused, namely the driver of the TATA Sumo car having registration No. KL- 8N-6831 driven the same along the Nenmarra – Nelliyampathy road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, with PWs 2 to 4, 6 and 7 along with four other passengers on board and when it reached near 14th Mile junction, the vehicle plunged into a gorge having a depth of about 300 metres and as a result of which all of them sustained injuries and four passengers, who sustained serious injuries succumbed to the injuries.
3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to 22 and Exts. P1 to P22. MOs1 to 3 were identified. No evidence was adduced by the accused. After appreciating the available evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 279 , 337,338 and 304-A IPC , convicted and sentenced him to undergo various terms of punishment including rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304-A . In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge sustained the conviction as well as sentence and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this revision, raising various grounds.
4. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following:-
Whether the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate against the revision petitioner is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised in the Revision Petition?
5. Heard Sri. John S. Ralph, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The point:- One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that from the available evidence, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving gross negligence on the part of the accused, which is required for convicting him for the offences charged. Further, according to him, the passengers in the TATA Sumo consisting of 12 in numbers, after consuming liquor, created ruckus and frequently changed their seats and while doing so, happened to hit against the steering wheel, which ultimately resulted in losing the control of the vehicle by the accused. Therefore, he prayed for acquitting the accused by allowing the Revision Petition. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that, from the evidence of PWs2 to 4, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the accused. According to her, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore, she prayed for dismissing the Revision Petition.
7. PW1 is the 1st informant. He has admitted his signature in Ext. P1 FI statement. However, he deposed that he has not actually seen the incident. However, he deposed that the car fell into a gorge in which four passengers died and the other passengers sustained injuries. After the incident, he along with the other passers-by, reached the spot to take the injured persons to the hospital. From his evidence it is revealed that the injured were drunk.
8. PW2 was one of the passengers in the TATA Sumo car involved in the incident. He would swear that on one day at about 10.00 a.m., while he along with 12 other persons, was travelling in a TATA Sumo car towards Nelliampathy, the car fell into a gorge when they reached 14th Mile junction. In the incident all of them sustained injuries and 4 persons di
