The principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' applies when the circumstances of the case clearly indicate negligence, sustaining conviction under IPC sections.

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC .

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.489 of 1995 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.12.1994 at

07.45 a.m. the petitioner drove the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-10/997, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, in an excessive speed through Angamaly - Aluva N.H. road from south to north and hit the jeep bearing Registration No.KL-5/3096. PWs 1 to 8, who were travelling in the jeep, sustained serious injuries and three others died on the spot. 4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 20 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Section s 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 of , three months for the offence under Section 337 of , one year for the offence under Section 338 and two years for the offence under Section 304A of . The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur (for short, 'appellate court') in Crl.A.No.222 of 2001. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned conviction and sentence mainly on two grounds:- (1) The identity of the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle has not been properly proved. (2) There is no legal evidence to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner.

7. PWs 1 to 8 were cited as occurrence witnesses. They were travelling in the jeep involved in the incident. However, PWs 1 to 3 alone supported the prosecution. PWs 4 to 8 turned hostile. PWs 1 to 3 gave evidence that while the jeep in which they were travelling reached at Kariyad Junction, Aluva- Angamaly road, the lorry which was driven by the petitioner came from opposite side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner overtook an autorickshaw and hit against the jeep. They as well as others travelling in the jeep sustained serious injuries and three other persons died on the spot. All the three occurrence witnesses identified the petitioner as the person who drove the lorry. PWs 1 and 2 deposed that the lorry came at high speed. PW3 specifically deposed that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 deposed that he sat in the front side of the jeep and he could clearly see the lorry driver. PWs 3 and 4 stated that immediately after the incident, the petitioner abandoned the lorry and escaped in a KSRTC bus. Even though PWs 1 to 3 were cross examined at length, nothing tangible could be extracted from their testimony to discredit the prosecution version. PW19 is the investigating officer. The investigating officer deposed that after the arrest, the petitioner was shown to the witnesses. PW3 deposed that the petitioner was brought to the hospital. Therefore, there was previous identification as well. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no proper identification cannot be accepted at all.

8. As stated already, PWs 1 and 2 deposed that