Rash and negligent driving resulting in death constitutes an offence under IPC Sections 279 and 304A, wherein the evidence must clearly support the findings of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

The Circle Inspector of Police, Wadakkancherry, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Wadakkancherry, in C.C.No.510 of 1996 accusing offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC with an allegation that at 4. p.m., on 1.11.1995, the revision petitioner drove a tempo van bearing Reg. No.KL9C/296 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Shornur- Thrissur public road from north to south and knocked down late Pravitha, aged 11 years who was walking along the eastern side of the road. As a result, Pravitha sustained severe injuries to which she succumbed at 7.35 p.m. while undergoing treatment at West Fort Hospital, Thrissur.

2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 were 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. 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 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section

304A IPC .

3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.130 of 1999 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 3.1.2002, 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.

4. I have heard either side. Perused the judgments impugned as well as the evidence on record.

5. PW1, the uncle of the mother of the deceased, had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. According to PW1, who is a Professor, retired from Vysa College, while he was standing in front of the house of the deceased, the deceased Pravitha was returning from the school. Pravitha alighted down from the school van and was walking towards south along the eastern side of the road. The van bearing Reg.No.KL9C/296 driven by the revision petitioner from north to south knocked down Pravitha. She sustained grievous hurt. She was first taken to the Divine Hospital, Wadakkancherry. From there, she was referred to the West Fort Hospital, Thrissur, where the injured succumbed at 7.35 p.m. to the injuries sustained. PW1 would attribute rashness and negligence against the revision petitioner. PWs 2 and 3 also would give corroborating evidence. They had also attributed negligence against the revision petitioner.

6. PW4 is an attestor to Ext.P2 Inquest Report. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Ext.P3 scene mahazar would show that the road at the place of occurrence was having a width of 6ms and that the accident was at 61cms towards west from eastern tar end. From the spot of occurrence there is tyre mark extending to 10.64 metres on the left side and 12.1 metres from the right side. The vehicle was stopped in a diagonal position across the road after running such a distance. The spot of occurrence and the manner in which the vehicle was lying also would speak volumes about the rashness and negligence of the revision petitioner. The long tyre marks after the spot of occurrence indicates the speed. The evidence of PW8, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, supported by Ext.P5 would show that the vehicle had no mechanical defect. Therefore, mechanical defect cannot be attributed as a cause of accident.

7. The evidence of PW6, the Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, supported by Ext.P4 Postmortem Certificate would show that Pravitha died due to head injuries. The cause of death is also not disputed. Going by the judgments of the courts below and the evidence