The case solidifies the principle that negligence in driving resulting in injury or death is a prosecutable offense under the IPC.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.93/2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. The Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North Police Station in Crime No.350/2001 prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and

304 A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

2. The brief allegation against the revision petitioner is that at 11.30 P.M., on 30/6/2001, he drove a Van bearing Reg.No.KL-8-J-3853 through National Highway, Alappuzha -Ernakulam stretch, from south to north in a rash an negligent manner so as to endanger human life and rammed on a handcart carrying a country boat and pulled by PWs

2 to 6 and one Antony in the same direction. As a result, PWs 2 to 6 and Antony sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment Antony succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, an eyewitness, case was registered by PW14, the Sub Inspector of Police, for which Exhibit P5 First Information Report was prepared. He took over the investigation and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

3. The revision petitioner, in response to the process, entered appearance before the trial court and pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offences were read over and explained. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 16 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner took a defence of total denial. 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 six months under Section 304 A IPC . He was also sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 338 . No separate sentence was awarded under Section 337 .

4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. Appeal No.702/2005 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Alappuzha to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 25/7/2006, 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. Sri. V.C.Sarath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Miss Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader.

6. PWs 1 to 6 had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. Their evidence is mutually corroborating. Exhibit P1 First Information Statement given by PW1 also corroborates with the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 in material particulars. PW7, the cleaner who was also relied upon by the prosecution, turned hostile. But he would admit that the revision petitioner was the driver. Regarding the incident which is not disputed, there is the evidence of PWs 1 to 6. They had attributed negligence against the petitioner. Of course, in their evidence there are some minor discrepancies and omissions. The courts below had opined that the minor discrepancies and omissions are not so grave to affect the core of the prosecution case. It is reported that all the witnesses are fishermen. Their evidence is to be appreciated in their educational and social set up. I find nothing on record to come to a conclusion that their evidence is not at all credible. Exhibit P2, the scene mahazar would show that the road at the place of occurrence was having a width of seven metres and that the incident occurred at a distance of 215 cms towards east from the western tarred end. It would indicate that the handcart was pulled along the left side of the road. There is nothing to show that PWs 2 to 6 or late Antony had contributed anything to cause the accident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is evident that had the