Negligent driving leading to conviction under IPC; identity and reliability of witness evidence emphasized.

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 and 304A of IPC .

2. The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.323 of 1994 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta (for short, 'the trial court') He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner drove the bus named Hareesh, bearing Registration No.KLU 8922, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, through Konni-Pathanapuram road from south to north on 13.01.1994 at 4.15 p.m., and hit the father of PW1, who was travelling on a bicycle in the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, the father of PW1 fell down, sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 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 Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 279 of and three months for the offence under Section 304A of . The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional District & Sessions Court (Ad hoc), Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta (for short, 'appellate court') in Crl.A.No.118 of 1999. 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. Since there was no representation for the revision petitioner continuously, this Court appointed Smt.Thushara K. as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

6. I have heard Smt.Thushara K., the learned Amicus Curiae and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. I place on record the appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there is no legal evidence to prove the identity of the petitioner. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the conviction is based on the solitary evidence of PW2 and the nature of his evidence would show that he is not wholly reliable and hence the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the revision petitioner. Lastly, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the sentence imposed is excessive.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A of IPC have been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Prosecutor further submitted that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in revision.

9. PW1 is son of the deceased who gave the FI statement.

PW2 is the occurrence witness who was travelling in the bus. PW7 is the owner of the bus involved in the incident. PW8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PWs 9 and 10 are the doctors who examined the deceased at the hospital.

10. PW1 did not see the incident. PW2 gave evidence that while he was travelling in the bus from Pathanapuram to Konni, it hit against the deceased, who came from the opposite direction on his bicycle. He deposed that the driver of the bus drove the bus at hig