Conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304A requires sufficient evidence of negligence, which was deemed inadequate in this case.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam and the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Ernakulam, in C.C.No.2323/2001 and Crl.Appeal No.286/2007, respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner drove a private bus in a rash and negligent manner likely to endanger human life, at about 2.43 pm, on 11.09.2001, and caused that vehicle to hit against a pedestrian, who was crossing the road, leading to fatal injuries which resulted in her death.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on record eight documents as Exts.P1 to P8. The petitioner did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 , and Simple Imprisonment of six months under Section 304A . Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the aforesaid appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1, the Police Constable on traffic duty at the junction where the accident occurred, is the one and only witness who had seen the accident involved in this case. PW1 deposed before the Court that the petitioner moved the bus after receiving signal from him for the same, and that the victim, all of a sudden crossed the road at that time, and was hit down by the bus. There is no case for the prosecution that the bus was moved forward at a very high speed. Nor has the prosecution a contention that the bus was taken forward through the wrong side, or that it was moved in violation of the traffic signal given by PW1. The only evidence pertaining to the negligent driving of the petitioner is the statement of PW1 during chief examination that the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner had resulted in the accident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid solitary statement of PW1, is not enough to fasten the petitioner with the criminal liability under Sections 279 and 304A IPC . This is especially so in view of the statement of PW1 that the petitioner has moved the bus only after getting the signal from him. It is also pertinent to note that PW1 stated during cross examination that at the time when he looked, the victim was lying in the road. The above statement of PW1 would reveal that he did not see the exact incident of the bus hitting the victim. For that reason also, it is not possible to attribute any credence upon the statement of PW1 that the lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner was the cause of the accident. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court appear to have acted upon evidence, which ought not have been relied on, and proceeded with the conviction and sentence upon the petitioner. That being so, it is well within the ambit of power of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C, to inter