Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, J
MANEESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/2634/2009
Criminal Law - Negligence - IPC Section List - The court discussed Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC, focusing on the principles of negligence and identification. It found significant contradictions in witness testimonies and concluded that the evidence was insufficient for conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under IPC for driving negligently and causing death. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences, and the appellate court confirmed these convictions. The petitioner appealed against this decision, claiming insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed witness reliability, particularly regarding identification. It found contradictions in the statements of key witnesses and highlighted the prosecution's failure to present crucial eyewitness testimony, undermining the case against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the identification of the petitioner as the driver was legally valid and whether the evidence supported a conviction for the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reliance on contradictory testimonies and the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence rendered the conviction unsafe, emphasizing that a legal identification requires adequate opportunity for observation.
Final Decision: The convictions and sentences are set aside; the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.
ORDER
1. kThe petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC . He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offences under , 337 and 338 of and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A of . The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner was also disqualified for holding his driving licence for a period of two years. The petitioner preferred appeal against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the convictions and sentences passed by the trial court. Challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the convictions and sentences passed by the courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: The petitioner drove a TATA Sumo car at 10.30 a.m. on 20-08-2004 through Kollakadavu-Painummoodu Road from east to west in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and knocked down Sukumara Pillai, the deceased in this case, who was walking from west to east along that road. The occurrence caused hurt and grievous hurt to Sukumara Pillai. He succumbed to the injuries on 06-10-2004 while undergoing treatment for the injuries at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.
4. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P12 on their side. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identification of the petitioner made by PW2 cannot be accepted to be a legal one. The evidence given by PW2 is not believable and it is contradictory to the prosecution case. The reliance placed on Ext.P5 Scene Mahazar is also not legal. The non-examination of CW2, who was cited as an eyewitness to the occurrence, in fact, caused prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this is a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this Court, submits the learned counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, disputes the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the evidence on record proves that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him.
5. The prosecution has cited CWs.2 and 3 as occurrence witnesses for proving their case. CW3 was examined as PW2. He repeatedly stated that the occurrence had taken place in front of his shop. He stated that the deceased Sukumara Pillai was going out of his shop by walking towards south at the time of occurrence. So, according to him, the deceased Sukumara Pillai was walking from north to south at the time of occurrence. It is also his case that he had stated to the police that Sukumara Pillai was walking from north to south at the time of occurrence.
But, such a statement does not appear in his statement given to the police.
6. It is the specific case of the prosecution that Sukumara Pillai was walking from west to east at the time of occurrence. The evidence given by PW2 is contradictory to the same. Ext.P5 is the Scene Mahazar prepared in this case. It is noted in this document that a stationary shop run by Gopalakrishnan is situated on the northern side of the place of occurrence. On the western side of this stationary shop remains Anju Printers. It is the prosecution case that PW2 is running that Anju Printers. The statements in regard to the location of the stationary shop and Anju Printers contained in Ext.P5 would go to show that the occurrence had not taken place just in front of the shop of PW2 as claimed by him. Ext.P1 is the F.I.Statement which was given by PW1, son of the deceased Sukumara Pillai. That was given at 3.30 p.m. on 22-08-2004. PW1 has stated in Ext.P1 that the deceased Sukumara Pillai was walking from west to east along the Kollakadavu-Painummoodu road at the time of occurrence.
He was going from a library situated in front of a temple at Ku
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
