IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 279 of 2007 ----------------------------

JUDGMENT IN CRA 323/2004 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM DATED 19-07-2006 JUDGMENT IN CC 145/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM DATED 14-09-2004 ----------------------

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-

-----------------------------------------

SUBRAHMANIAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, KANIYAMPAL LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, NO.169 NEAR SUBRAHMANIYA TEMPLE, KAMIYAMVAL, DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :-

--------------------------

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

22-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 22^nd day of January 2018

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC and Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in C.C.No.145/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 10.30 p.m. on 19.5.1999, he drove the lorry No.KL-8/G-9154 along the Kollam – Alappuzha National Highway, the said lorry hit on an autorickshaw at Neendakara, and in the said accident, two passengers in the autorickshaw died, and two persons, including the autorickshaw driver sustained injuries. The prosecution would allege that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The police registered the crime on the basis of the F.I.Statement given by a relative of one of the deceased, and after investigation submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.

2. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P16 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the autorickshaw driver, who was in a drunken condition at that time. The accused examined himself as DW1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C.

with the permission of the court.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 338 IPC, but he was found guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC, and also under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,000/- under Section 304(A) IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one moth under Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 14.9.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kollam with Crl.A.No.323/2004. In appeal, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now, the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence on the ground that there is no legal evidence to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, and also on the ground that there are some circumstances indicating rashness and negligence on the part of the autorickshaw driver.

4. Of the 17 witnesses examined in the trial court, the material witnesses are PW2, PW5, PW7, PW11 and PW16. PW1 is the first informant, and he is also a relative of one of t