Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48923
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
KURIAN P ANTHROYOS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1739/2002
Negligent driving that causes death is a serious offence; subsequent accidents do not mitigate initial liability if the driver was at fault.
Headnote:
Negligence - Traffic Offences - IPC Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act Sections 134(a)(b), 187 - The court reiterated the interpretation of negligence in traffic accidents, emphasizing duty of care, and upheld the conviction of the driver for causing death through rash driving.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of rash and negligent driving, resulting in a fatal accident where the victim was struck by a lorry driven by the petitioner, who failed to render assistance after the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the allegations of negligence, affirming the conviction based on the lack of mechanical defect in the lorry and the driver's failure to stop after the accident.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving causing death and whether the subsequent incident could absolve him of liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a driver has a duty to exercise care; failure to do so that results in harm holds legal consequences, and subsequent events don't absolve initial negligence.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence are upheld.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kanjar in Crime No.178/1994 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha in C.C.No.84/1995 accusing offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC , and Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act with an allegation that at 6.30 P.M. on 15/9/2004, the revision petitioner drove a lorry bearing Reg.No.KCE 4258 from east to west along Thodupuzha-Moolamattom road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as a result, the lorry knocked down late Pappachan who was walking along with PW1 through the northern road margin. Pappachan sustained severe injuries. But the revision petitioner drove away without rendering any medical aid or reporting before the police. Pappachan succumbed to the injuries while PW1 and others taking him to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.
2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 18 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that while he negotiating curve at the spot, three pedestrians quickly rushed to the road. While attempting to save the pedestrians the accident occurred. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a fining of guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and ten months respectively under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC . A fine of Rs.500/- was imposed under Section
134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of the M.V. Act.
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.207/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 4/9/2002, while confirming the conviction and the 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 Adv. Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Saleena George, the learned the Government Pleader. Perused the impugned judgment.
5. The defence version itself would show that the occurrence of the accident was not disputed. Neither the identity of the assailant was disputed. But the plea is that while attempting to save three pedestrians who crossed the road all on a sudden, the accident occurred. Other than the statement, there is no supporting evidence that any pedestrian attempted to cross the road or that the accident occurred in attempt to save the pedestrians crossing the road.
6. The evidence of Motor Vehicles Inspector, who was examined as PW13 supported by Exhibit P4 report would show that the lorry had no mechanical defect. The unchallenged testimony of PW13 supported by Exhibit P4 would rule out the possibility for having the accident occurred because of any mechanical defect.
7. Exhibit P6 scene mahazar would show that at the spot of occurrence the tar road which is a State Highway was having a width of 5.7 metres and that the accident occurred along road margin, 108 cms towards north from the northern tar end. The spot of occurrence revealed by Exhibit P6 could not be impeached. The spot of occurrence would suggest that the lorry went off the road to 108 cms on the right side and knocked down the pedestrians. The spot of occurrence itself would speak volumes about the negligence of the driver of the lorry. It is also pertinent to note that even though Pappachan was badly hit down the lorry was not stopped. Rashness is also evident. He drove ahead and at a distance of three or four kilometres, the lorry again went off the road and capsized. Then only the revision petitioner stopped.
8. Now the evidence of PWs 1, 7 and 11 can be looked into. All are harmonious that the
