The court emphasized the significance of eyewitness accounts in establishing guilt for negligent driving, even when identity issues were raised.

O R D E R

At 5.15 P.M. on 24/7/1994 near a petrol bunk along Perambra-Ullieri Road, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL11-2024 driven by the revision petitioner hit down one Shaji, who was pedaling a bicycle along the road. It is alleged that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw and as a result the bicyclist, who was examined as PW1 in C.C.No.30/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perambra, sustained grievous hurt.

2. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, while undergoing treatment, PW8, the Head Constable attached to the Perambra Police Station registered a case for which Exhibit P5 First Information Report was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the trial court accusing offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC .

3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty.

Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 10 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. After closing the evidence of the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and 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, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively under Sections 279 IPC and 338 .

4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No.102/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The First Additional Sessions Judge to whom the appeal was made over, 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 Adv. Smt. Smitha Chathanarambath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Lisha, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence on record.

6. One of the argument that was advanced is that the identity of the revision petitioner was not established by the evidence on record. Going by the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, I find that PW1 could not identify the revision petitioner as the driver of the autorickshaw. But he had given evidence regarding the negligence of the auto driver to cause the accident. There is no suggestion to PW1 that he had any way contributed any negligence to cause the accident. PWs 2 and 3 who are local witnesses had given evidence identifying the revision petitioner as the driver of the autorickshaw and attributing negligence against him. Exhibit P6 trip sheet also support the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the identity of the revision petitioner. They are the persons who lifted PW1 to the hospital. Though they were subjected to searching cross-examination, their evidence remains unimpeached regarding the identity of the revision petitioner and the negligence attributed against the revision petitioner. To them also there is no suggestion that PW1 had any way contributed any negligence to cause the accident. Admittedly the scene mahazar would show that the accident was along the side of the road. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the argument that the identity of the revision petitioner was not established by the evidence on record. The courts below had correctly appraised the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner was the driver of the autorickshaw.

7. Regarding the negligence also there is consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Therefore, I find that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligence driving of the autorickshaw by the revision petitioner.

8. The evidence of PW7 supported by Exhibit P4 wound certificate would show that