Court confirmed the accused's acquittal due to insufficient evidence establishing guilt under IPC sections.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam, and the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kozhikode, in C.C.No.427/1998 & Crl.A.No.218/2004, respectively, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ’), are under challenge in this revision petition. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months and one year respectively, imposed by the Trial Court, to rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months. So also, the default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment was reduced by the Appellate Court to 15 days.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner drove a mini lorry in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life on 09.03.1998, at about 8:45 p.m., through a public road, and caused the above vehicle to hit from behind a person by name ‘Karunakaran’ walking through the left side of that road, leading to serious injuries to which he succumbed after a few days.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW1 to PW16, and brought on record nine documents as Exts P1 to P9. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence under Sections 279 & 304A IPC , and convicted him thereunder. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for the offence under Section 279 , and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for the offence under Section 304A . The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months and six months respectively. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

5. PW2 to PW4 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish the charge that rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner has resulted in the accident. However, PW2 & PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution and discredited the prosecution story. Though PW4 stated that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused, his testimony is to the effect that the rear side of the mini lorry had hit the victim, and that the lorry was coming from behind. PW4 further stated that he noticed the event only after hearing the noise. He also stated that by the time the accident happened, the lorry had already passed him. It is pertinent to note that the incident happened at 8:40 p.m., during night time. It is hardly possible for PW4 to confirm the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner in the above facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below by relying on the sole evidence of PW4 about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner leading to the accident, appears to be totally irregular and against the settled principles of law. Since it is seen that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had accepted the evidence which ought not have been relied, it is well within the scope of powers of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. It would be highly unsafe and improper to fasten the petitioner with criminal liability under Sections 279 & 304A IPC by placing reliance on the testimony of PW4, which is wholly unreliable. Therefore, I am of the view that the concurrent verdicts of the courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

In the result, the p