Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42953
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
V V JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 2703/2003
Negligent driving resulting in death is punishable under IPC Sections 279 and 304A, with appropriate penalties based on the severity of the offense.
Headnote:
Negligence - Road Traffic Violations - IPC Section List - Sections 279, 304A of IPC were applied to assess rash and negligent driving causing death. The court interpreted these provisions to affirm the conviction, noting the evidence of eyewitnesses and the physical circumstances surrounding the incident.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for driving negligently, causing the death of a 12-year-old pedestrian. Evidence included eyewitness testimonies and a postmortem report detailing severe injuries sustained by the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on consistent eyewitness accounts attributing negligence to the petitioner, supported by forensic evidence showing high-speed impact.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner's actions constituted negligence leading to the death of the victim and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient defense against the allegations of rash driving, affirming that the evidence presented justified the conviction.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed in part; fines imposed and sentencing adjusted.
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
The Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-I, Mananthavady in C.C. 73/96 found the revision petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 279 and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 304A . The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kalpetta in Crl.A.No.115/2001 concurred with the trial court. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this Revision Petition is preferred.
2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mananthavady, in Crime No.207/1995, accusing the above offences with an allegation that at 12.45 p.m., on 17.11.1995, the revision petitioner drove a jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-11-D/1625 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Mananthavdy - Panamaram public road and hit down Yoonas, a student, aged 12 years, studying in
6th standard and as a result Yoonas sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed on the same day while undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode.
3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short 'Cr.P.C.'). He took a plea of total innocence. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced as above. The revision petitioner was unsuccessful in his appeal before the Sessions Judge.
4. PW1 is the first informant. Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement. PWs 2 to 4 are occurrence witnesses. Ext.P2 is the inquest report wherein PWs 5 and 6 are attestors. PW7 is the Professor and Police Surgeon attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode who had issued Ext.P3 postmortem certificate. PW8 is an attestor to Ext.P4 scene mahazar. PWs 9 and 10 are the attestors to Ext.P5, a mahazar prepared for the jeep. PW11 is the Circle Inspector of Police who registered the case and conducted the investigation.
5. Ext.P4 scene mahazar would show that the road at the place of the occurrence was north-south direction and was having a width of 5.30 metres. Road margins were measuring 1.50 metres on the east and 1.20 metres on the west. It was straight for 100 metres towards south and 75 metres towards north. The place of occurrence is described as the tar road end touching the road margin. The consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is that the deceased was walking along the margin of the road when he was hit down. All of them had attributed negligence against the revision petitioner who was identified as the driver of the jeep. The evidence of PW1 was not relied upon by the appellate court for the reason that he has not seen the actual hit. He saw the incident when he looked ahead on hearing the sound. PWs 2 to 4, of whom, PW2 is the uncle of the mother of the deceased, are harmonious that the deceased was walking through the side of the road and that the accident occurred because of the over speed and negligence of the revision petitioner who was driving a jeep. PWs 3 and 4 were walking along with the deceased. Though PWs 2 to 4 were subjected to searching cross examination nothing was revealed out to disbelieve them or any material was brought out to come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner was falsely implicated. The suggestion made in cross- examination is that the accident occurred while the deceased cutting across the road. There is no supporting evidence. Not only that, the suggestion is belied by the spot of occurrence revealed out by Ext.P4 which is not at all challenged in cross-examination. Therefore, I find that the courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion that the deceased
