Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC in C.C. No.73/1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – V, Kozhikode. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 7.45 p.m. on 24.7.1991, he drove the bus No.KLL-5373 rashly and negligently, so as to endanger human life, along the Kozhikode-Ramanattukara National Highway, the said bus hit behind a scooter at Kannanchery, and in the said accident, the rider of the scooter sustained fatal injuries, to which, he succumbed within no time. The police registered the crime on the complaint made by a person, who witnessed the accident. After investigation, the police submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.

2. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the unfortunate accident occurred only because the rider of the scooter overtook the bus along the wrong side. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC , and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304 (A) . Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2002, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.A. No.612/2002. In appeal, the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence under was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months, and the sentence under (A) was reduced to simple imprisonment for five months. Now, the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that there is something suspicious in the allegations of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The main witnesses relied on by the prosecution are PW1, PW2 and PW5. Of them, PW1 is the person, who gave the F.I.Statement. PW3 did not support the prosecution. Though he was cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be brought out to incriminate the accused. PW2 was a passenger in the bus, and PW5 is another person, who witnessed the accident.

5. The prosecution case is that the scooter involved in the accident was proceeding in front of the bus. But the evidence of PW2 is otherwise, that the scooter came from the opposite side. He is not definite whether both the vehicles were proceeding along the same direction. This itself is sufficient to find that he had not actually witnessed the accident. The scene mahazar shows that the exact spot of accident is 40 cms to the west from the eastern road margin.

But the evidence of PW1 is that the spot of accident is some what at the middle of the road. He has no consistency as to how and where exactly the bus hit on the scooter. Once he stated that the bus hit behind the scooter, but in the next breath he stated that the front left corner of the bus hit on the right side of the scooter. Regarding the identity of the bus driver also, he is not consistent. He stated that the bus had overtaken another vehicle before hitting behind the scooter, but he has no such case in the Ext.P1 statement given by him. When cross- examined by the defence, he stated that only after the accident, he knew who actually was the driver of the bus. This means that he had not actually seen the driver of the bus. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the evidence of PW1, that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of th