The court confirmed conviction for negligent driving leading to death, emphasizing the validity of evidence and modifying sentencing for rehabilitation.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, and the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and the suspension of driving licence of the petitioner invoking Section 22 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.11.1999, at about 10.30 am, the petitioner drove a private bus along the Kozhikode-Kallayi Road, in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, and caused the above vehicle to hit a lady by name ‘Thirumala’, while she was walking by the side of the same road in the opposite direction, resulting in serious injuries which eventually led to her death on 11.12.1999. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13, and brought on record 8 documents as Exts.P1 to P8, in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

4. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the prosecution has successfully established the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC . Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 , and Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 304A . In addition to the above penalty, the driving licence of the petitioner was ordered to be kept under suspension for a period of two years.

5. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

7. The accident involved in this case was witnessed by two persons. One among the above witnesses was the husband of the deceased lady and the other witness was PW3. Since the husband of the deceased lady passed away before the commencement of the trial, the prosecution could not examine him as a witness. However, PW3, who had the occasion to see that accident, stated before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. He also identified the petitioner as the driver of the above bus. The statement of PW3 was to the effect that the bus was coming at a very high speed, at a time when the vehicular and pedestrian movement were peak in that area. PW3 categorically stated before the Trial Court that due to the above rash and negligent driving, the bus happened to hit the deceased lady, resulting in serious injuries to her.

9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, placed reliance upon the above statement of PW3 and came to the conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner, resulted in the accident. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The evidence adduced by PW3, does not suffer from any anomaly or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. Th