The court clarified that under IPC Sections 279, 338, and 304 A, driving negligently leading to injury and death requires establishing direct causation and individual responsibility without sharing fault.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani in Crime No.61/1991 accusing offences under Section 279 , 338 and 304 A IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnani in C.C.No.121/1992. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that at 5 A.M., on 3/8/1991 the revision petitioner drove a trucker bearing Reg No. KER-6118 along the National Highway at Ponnani-Chavakkadu stretch, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life with passengers and as a result the trucker hit against another trucker bearing Reg.No.KRR-7288 driven in the opposite direction.

As a result, PW3, who was a passenger in the jeep driven by the revision petitioner, sustained grievous hurt. One Sulaiman who was the passenger in the other jeep also sustained grievous hurt to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment.

2. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance 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 12 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked. MO1, certain glass pieces were also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a plea of total innocence with a counter allegation that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the other trucker. However, no defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 and 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304 A .

3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl Appeal No.55/1997 before the Sessions Judge, Manjery. The Sessions Judge, Manjery, by judgment dated 27/6/2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.

4. I have heard Adv. Sri. K.Rakesh, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. Naushad Thottathil, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgments of the courts below as well as the material evidence.

5. The factum of the accident is not only not disputed but admitted. The allegation of the prosecution that the revision petitioner was driving the offending vehicle, was also not disputed. As I mentioned earlier, the plea is that the driver of the other vehicle contributed negligence to cause the accident. Such being the defence plea, the spot of occurrence is a relevant document to determine the dispute. Exhibit P2 scene mahazar prepared by PW10, the Circle Inspector of Police, wherein PW5 is an attester, would show that the National Highway at the spot of occurrence was having a width of 4.65 metres. It was a straight road. The accident occurred at 1.92 cms towards east from the western tar end. The revision petitioner was driving from north to south. The other vehicle was driven in the opposite direction. The spot of occurrence would show that the revision petitioner had driven to the wrong side of the road and hit against the other vehicle which was keeping the correct side. Exhibit P2 would further show that the vehicle driven by the revision petitioner came to a halt after hitting the other vehicle only after running a distance of 19.45 metres with tyre mark. The long tyre mark would show that the vehicle was driven at a very high speed. That is the sum and substance of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who were passengers in the other vehicle. PWs 3 and 4 who were passengers in the vehicle driven by the revision petitioner also would corroborate. Had the revision petitioner been driving along the left side of the road, the accident w