The judgment reaffirms that negligence in driving, evidenced by credible witness testimony, can lead to liability under IPC provisions for causing harm.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner was found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur in C.C.No.23/1994 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 337 IPC. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.38/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Thalassery. The Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery, to whom the appeal was made over by Judgment dated 11/12/2002, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence for offence under Section 338 IPC to simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal this revision petition is preferred.

2. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that at 6.40 A.M. on 25/8/1993, the revision petitioner drove a stage carriage bus bearing Reg.No.KL.13/5335 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Kannur – Thalassery National Highway and because of the rash and negligent driving, the bus went off the road and capsized at Keezhathalli. As a result, one of the passengers sustained grievous hurt and 17 passengers in the bus sustained simple hurt.

3. Heard and perused the judgment and records.

4. Going by the judgment impugned, I find that the accident was not at all disputed by the revision petitioner. But his plea is that the accident occurred since the axle was broken. But, no defence evidence was let in support of that plea. PWs 1 to 8 were examined by the prosecution to support the prosecution case. Of the above PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 10 had identified the revision petitioner as the driver and attributed negligence. But in cross-examination PWs 1 to 4 deposed that they were not aware of as to who was driving the vehicle. PWs 7 and 10 are consistent that the revision petitioner was driving the bus at the time of accident. I find no reason to reject the evidence of PWs 7 and 10 regarding the identity and negligence of the revision petitioner. Some others had deposed that the bus was driven at a very extreme high speed and hence the accident occurred. Some of them could not identify the revision petitioner as the driver of the bus. The fact that the stage carriage bus driven along the Highway went off the road and capsized itself speaks volumes about the negligence on the side of the driver. Though the revision petitioner advanced a plea that the axle was broken and thus he lost control, no evidence was let in. That suggestion was put to PW25, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to him even if the axle was broken, if the bus was driven at a controllable speed, it would not have capsized. The courts below believed the evidence of PW25 and rejected the defence. I find no reason to arrive at a divergent conclusion. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly come to a conclusion of guilty.

5. Regarding the sentence, I find that the appellate court was lenient in reducing the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. No further leniency is warranted. Therefore, the sentence also requires no interference.

In the result, the revision petition fails.

Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court which shall see the execution of the sentence and report compliance.