The court upheld convictions under IPC for rash driving causing death while modifying the sentence due to the lengthy delay since the incident.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, and the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track)-II, Alappuzha, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 , 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ' IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner drove a tempo trax vehicle in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, at about 12:30 p.m. on 05.05.2001, through a public road, and caused the above vehicle to hit against a person by name Radhakrishnan, leading to grievous injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and marked nine documents as Exts P1 to P9. One defence witness was examined as DW1. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has successfully established the offences alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304A IPC , and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 . No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 338 . Default sentence was also provided for non-payment of fine. The Appellate Court, after a re-apprisal of the aforesaid evidence, found that there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the courts below, that the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 to find that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner resulted in the accident. The above witnesses testified before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms that they had seen the accident, and that it happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings on facts, arrived by the courts below by relying on the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the courts below with regard to the commission of offence under Section 304A IPC is not sustainable, since the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the victim, had not been examined as a witness. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that Ext P9 postmortem certificate has been duly proved. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel, since it is seen that Ext P9 postmortem certificate has been proved through PW9, a Lecturer of the Forensic Medicines of the Medical College concerned, who is acquainted with the signature and handwriting of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. It cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW9 has to be discarded for non-examination of the Doctor concerned, who conducted postmortem examination. In situations where the presence of such witnesses could not be procured, it is well within the ambit of law, to have the documents proved through the competent persons who are acquainted with