Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34150
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
CHENARI HAMZA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 623/2002
Negligence in driving, as evidenced by speeding and the nature of the accident, warrants legal accountability despite claims of mechanical defects.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accidents - IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 - Summary: The court interpreted Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC in relation to a driving incident, establishing that endangering life due to rash driving constituted negligence, which affirmed the initial convictions despite mechanical failure claims.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was charged with negligent driving, causing an accident while carrying more passengers than permitted. The trial resulted in a conviction under IPC sections for negligence and endangerment, which was partially upheld on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the defense of mechanical failure, as the prosecution's witnesses consistently testified to the petitioner's reckless behavior and speeding, leading to the accident.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around whether the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving and if the alleged brake failure constituted a valid defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of negligence was predominant, outweighing the defense claims of mechanical failure, thereby justifying the convictions under IPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partially allowed, reducing the sentence but upholding the conviction.
O R D E R
The Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara Police Station in Crime No.109/1993 prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram in C.C.No.140/1994 accusing offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and under Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegations against the revision petitioner are that at 2.30 p.m on 23.10.1992, the revision petitioner drove a taxi jeep bearing Reg.No.KLL.5699 with seven passengers, who were examined as PWs 1 to 6 and 9, as against the permit to carry only five passengers, along Kondotty – Kunnumpuram road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as a result, the jeep went off the road and hit against a compound wall. The jeep after demolishing the compound wall, ran to the near by property and came to halt. Two of the passengers, who were examined as PWs 4 and 5, sustained grevious hurt and other passengers : 2:
sustained simple hurt.
2. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exts. P1 to P11 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence was let in, though he advanced a plea that the accident occurred due to break failure. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months, three months and one year respectively for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. For offence under Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/-.
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.206/1994 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The Sessions Judge, Manjeri by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2001, while confirming the conviction and sentence for offences under Section 279,337 and 338 IPC, set aside the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 66 read : 3:
with 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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. N.M. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Lisha M.G, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the defence that the accident occurred because of the failure of the break and not because of the rash or negligent driving of the petitioner. The factum of the accident, identity of the revision petitioner as the driver and the injury both grevious and simple, sustained to the passengers are not at all assailed.
6. PWs 1 to 6 and 9 had given evidence that they were passengers in the jeep and as a result of the accident, they sustained injuries. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 supported by Exts.P3 and P5 wound certificate would establish that PWs 4 and 5 sustained grevious hurt. According PWs 3 to 5, the accident occurred because of the failure of the break. According to PW6, the accident occurred because of the : 4:
exorbitant speed and negligence of the petitioner.
7. To negative the plea of mechanical defect, prosecution examined PW11, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle and issued Ext.P11 inspection report. PW11 would depose that the vehicle was examined in stationary condition and that no mechanical defect was noticed. Because of the impact of hit on the wall, the vehicle was so damaged that could not be driven and tested. Then the possible way is to examine the mechanical system, including the break in the stationary stage. Though PW11 was subjected to searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelive the evidence of PW11. The learned counsel canvassed my attention to Rule 96(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and would argue
