Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45744
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
K P SREEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE,(SHO,KANNUR TOWN),REP BY ITS P P – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 920/2002
Culpable negligence in traffic incidents can be established through circumstantial evidence even when eyewitnesses are unable to identify the driver directly.
Headnote:
Negligence - Traffic Offences - IPC Sections 279, 338; Motor Vehicles Act Section 134(b), 187 - The court confirmed convictions based on culpable negligence leading to grievous injury to a passenger resulting from a vehicle accident, emphasizing the lack of evidence for mechanical failure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged for driving an auto rickshaw in a negligent manner resulting in an accident that caused grievous injury to a passenger. He was found guilty by the Magistrate and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction based on eyewitness testimonies and evidence that indicated the petitioner was negligent, leading to the capsizing of the auto rickshaw, with no evidence of mechanical failure to absolve him of responsibility.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was negligent in operating the auto rickshaw leading to the accident and whether the convictions under the relevant sections were warranted given the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of eyewitnesses and the circumstances of the accident indicated that the petitioner acted negligently, making him liable for the injuries sustained by the passenger.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
O R D E R
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station, in Crime No.159/1991 filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kannur accusing offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC ; and Section 134 (b) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act . The allegation in brief is that at 4.30 p.m on 9.3.1991, the revision petitioner drove an auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KRM 5303 along Pallikkunnu-Kunhipalli public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as a result, near Manikkoth housing colony, the auto rickshaw capsized and two passengers inside the auto rickshaw sustained injuries. The injury sustained to one of the passengers was grevious. Revision petitioner did not care to report the incident before the police within 24 hours.
2. Responding to the process, revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty to the charge when particulars of the offence were read over and explained.
: 2:
Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 14 were examined. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. Ext.D1, a portion of the CD statement of PW6 was also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that while he giving side to a car, which was coming across, one of the wheels of the auto rickshaw fell into a pit and capsized. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC ; and a fine of Rs.350/- was imposed for offence under Section 134 (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act .
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.185/1996 before the Sessions Judge, Thalassery. By judgment dated 6.5.2002, the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, : 3:
correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
4. I have heard Sri.Robin Rodrigs, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgments impugned.
5. Pws 1 and 2 were the passengers in the auto rickshaw. Though they would speak about the occurrence of the accident and the injury sustained, they could not identify the revision petitioner as the driver of the auto rickshaw. Pws 3 and 4, two occurrence witnesses, turned hostile. PW5 is the son of PW2. He has only hearsay information. PW6, another independent witness, had identified revision petitioner as the driver of the auto rickshaw. PW7 though would speak about the occurrence, could not identify revision petitioner as the driver of the auto rickshaw. Ext.P5 trip sheet also would show that revision petitioner was the driver of the auto rickshaw. The courts below giving reliance to the evidence of PW6 and Ext.P5 had found that the revision petitioner was the driver of the auto rickshaw. Adding to that, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he : 4:
would admit that he was driving the auto rickshaw. Therefore, I find that the courts below had rightly found that the revision petitioner was the driver of the auto rickshaw.
6. Regarding the negligence, it is true that none of the witnesses had any mention. But the fact that the auto rickshaw, while driven along the road, capsized would speak volumes about the negligence. If the revision petitioner was driving with care and caution, in the normal course, auto rickshaw would not be capsized. The evidence of PW13 supported by Ext.P8 would show that the auto rickshaw had no mechanical defect. Therefore mec
