Court found insufficient evidence of negligence in driving, leading to reversal of conviction.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc II), Kozhikode, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 , 337 and 304A IPC , the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.06.2001 at about 8.30 am, the petitioner drove a mini lorry along the Perambra-Ulliyeri Public road in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life, and caused the above vehicle to hit a jeep which entered into that road from a petrol pump by the side of it, resulting in the swerving of the lorry to the right side and hitting a person standing by the opposite side of the road, leading to his death.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and brought on record 9 documents as Exts.P1 to P9. One contradiction in the prior statement of PW1 to the police is marked as Ext.D1 from the part of the defence. It is after the analysis of the aforesaid evidence that the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner committed the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, he was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC , Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 337 and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 304A . Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, refused to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.

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

5. PW1 to PW3 are the witnesses who gave evidence before the Trial Court in support of the prosecution case that the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the petitioner was the cause of the accident. However, it could be seen from the evidence of PW1 that high speed is stated to be the reason why he concluded that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is to be noted that even according to the above witness, the accident happened at a straight road extending upto a distance of 300 metres. Therefore, it is usual that the vehicles plying through such a straight road would be at a high speed. The mere fact that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed alone is not a reason to conclude that the driving amounted to rash and negligent driving. That apart, it is pertinent to note that PW1 had denied his earlier version to the police that a jeep, which entered into that road all of a sudden, had hit the lorry leading to the said lorry getting swerved into the opposite direction. The contradiction in the above regard is marked as Ext.D1 from the part of the defence. Having regard to the above nature of the evidence adduced by PW1, it appears that the courts below erroneously relied on the above evidence of PW1. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 had said during cross examination that he noticed the accident only after hearing the noise. If that be so, it cannot be said that PW1 was able to say precisely the reason for the accident. As far as PW2 is concerned, the above witness had stated before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms that the rash and negligent way in which the jeep entered into the public road and hit the mini lorry, was the reason why the above mini lorry happened to swerve in the opposite direction and to hit the deceased, who was standing by the side of the road there. PW3 has also given evidence before the Trial Court upon the same terms as that of PW2.

6. It is apparent from the evidence of t