The court overturned convictions under IPC due to unreliable evidence on rash driving, emphasizing the necessity of credible testimony.

ORDER

The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thodupuzha, in Crl.A.No.19/2011 confirming the conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Nedumkandam, for the commission of offences under Sections 279 , 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ') and awarding modified sentence for the offences under Section 338 & 304A , is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused in that case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.07.2006, at about 10:30 a.m., the petitioner drove a stage carriage in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life, along Munnar-Pooppara road, and caused the above bus to hit a motor bike driven by the victim, coming in the opposite direction, leading to fatal injuries to the victim and grievous hurt to PW5, the wife of the victim, who was travelling as pillion rider.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11, and marked 12 documents as Exts P1 to P12. 10 material objects were also identified and marked as MO1 to MO10. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of Sections 279 , 338 & 304A IPC and convicted him thereunder. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 , and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 338 and simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304A . Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction awarded by the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court excluded the punishment awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under , while confirming the sentence for the offence under Sections 338 & 304A , except the fine portion which was reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, 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. Among the 11 witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW5, the wife of the deceased, is the one and only witness who testified before the Trial Court about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner resulting in the accident. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the testimony of PW5 to arrive at the finding that the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner resulted in the accident. However, it is pertinent to note that PW5 has made it clear during cross-examination that at the time of accident, she was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor bike driven by her husband, by sitting in such a manner that her both legs were towards the same side of the motor bike. Admittedly, the bus came in the opposite direction and there was a head-on collision with the motor bike. PW5 had also made it clear in her statement that she lost consciousness immediately after the bus hit the motor bike and that it was only after 42 days that she regained consciousness. Having regard to the above nature of the evidence, it is not possible to give any credence to the statement of the above witness that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner had resulted in the accident. It would be highly unsafe and improper to fasten the petitioner with the criminal liability for rash and negligent driving on the basis of the above statement of PW5. Thus, it has to be stated that the courts below had relied on evidence which ought not have been accepted, for arriving at the finding about the rash and negligent driving attributed against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below, are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The judgmen