Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36505
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
GIRISH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 916/2002
A driver is negligent if they fail to ensure the safety of pedestrians, regardless of speed; awareness and care are critical.
Headnote:
Negligence - Road Traffic Accidents - IPC Sections [279, 304A] - The court upheld the conviction for negligence due to failure to take adequate care for pedestrians, highlighting that speed alone does not determine negligence, but awareness and care of the driver do.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of driving recklessly, leading to an accident where a pedestrian was fatally injured. The prosecution's evidence included eyewitness testimonies and an investigation report, while the petitioner maintained innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence indicating that the petitioner failed to exercise proper caution while driving, which resulted in the pedestrian’s death. The evidence from witnesses and supporting documents affirmed the conviction.
Issues: Whether the petitioner demonstrated negligence while driving, leading to the fatal accident, and whether the conviction and sentence were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: Driving without due consideration for pedestrians constitutes negligence. The evidence supported that the driver did not maintain care while giving way to another vehicle, contributing to the fatal accident.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed in part; the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to nine months of simple imprisonment and a fine.
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
The Circle Inspector of Police, Nadapuram Police Station, in Crime No.45/1996, filed a final report against the revision petitioner accusing offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC , alleging that at 6.p.m., on 8.3.1996, the revision petitioner drove an ambassador car bearing Reg. No.TN 37-A/7893 along Kozhikode-Kannur National Highway in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Kannookkara market the car knocked down late Narayana Kurup, a retired Sub Inspector, who was walking along the western side of the road from south to north and as a result Narayana Kurup sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed on the way to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode.
2. On the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, an onlooker, PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case for which Ext.P5 First Information Report was prepared. The investigation was taken over by then Circle Inspector of Police, Nadapuram, who was examined as PW14. PW14 was succeeded by PW15, who completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
3. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence were read over and explained. Therefore, the revision petitioner was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 were examined. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he took a plea of total innocence and stated that he was not driving the car at the alleged time. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and two years respectively under Sections 279 and 304A IPC .
4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.266/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -II), to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 22.4.2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred.
5. I have heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the relevant evidence as well as the relevant portions of the judgments of the courts below.
6. Prosecution had relied upon the testimony of PWs 1 to
3 in support of the prosecution case. PW3 turned hostile. Barring PW3, there is the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence. PWs 1 and 2 would harmoniously depose that while the deceased was walking towards north along the western side of the road, he was knocked down by the car driven by the revision petitioner. According to PW1, the car was driven at a speed exceeding 50kms. He had not attributed any negligence against the revision petitioner. But, PW2 had attributed negligence against the revision petitioner. PWs 1 and 2 were subjected to searching cross examination. Though various suggestions were made to PWs 1 and 2, including that the deceased was attempting to cross the road, PWs 1 and 2 had denied the same. Hearing the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, they appear to be natural witnesses. It doesn't appear that they are falsely implicating the petitioner. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by him. Critically going through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, other than certain minor discrepancies and embellishments, as found by the courts below, there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence regarding the occurrence.
7. Ext.P2 scene mahazar, wherein PW4 is an attestor, would show that the road at the spot of occurrence was having a width of
