Negligence in driving, as established through eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence, justifies conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 338.

O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in CC.No.348/97 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perinthalmanna, who stands convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He challenged his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Manjeri through Crl.A.No.220/2001. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings entered by the trial court, confirmed the conviction and sentence dismissed the appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that on 18.06.1997 at

1.45p.m, the petitioner drove Tata Sumo Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-5/E 6440 from south to north through the Wandur-Nilambur road, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and when it reached at Pulikkal, he caused to hit the vehicle on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KLL 5680, which was being ridden by PW1 with PW2 as pillion rider from north to south, through the said road. PWs.1 and 2 sustained grievous hurt.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no sufficient evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the petitioner or the other ingredients Sections 279 as well as 338 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that there is sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution through the versions of PWs.1 and 2 as well as Ext.P2 scene mahazar, regarding the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner.

4. PW1 was the rider of the motorbike and PW2 was the pillion rider. According to PW1, the Tata Sumo vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in a rash manner, and thereby the incident had occurred. According to PW2, the incident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the incident had occurred at a curve and not at the place as pointed out in Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 also, the curve on the road is shown to; but, it is not exactly at the scene of occurrence.

In the cross examination of PW1, he has stated that the incident had occurred even prior to his negotiating the curve as a whole. According to PW2, the incident had occurred just after the curve.

5. Ext.P2 is the scene mahazar, which reveal that the incident has occurred 1.20 metres away towards west from the eastern tar end and 3.32 metres away towards east from the western tar end. It seems that the tarred portion of the road at the scene of occurrence has a width of 4.52 metres. Matters being so, it is evident that the Tata Sumo vehicle, which was driven by the petitioner had gone beyond the middle line of the road towards wrong side. Therefore, the circumstances clearly reveal that the maxim res ipsa loquitor can be clearly applied in this case. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Ext.P2, clearly reveal the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner, in driving the Tata Sumo vehicle, which has resulted in the incident.

6. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through the deposition of PW7, and the contents of Exts.P6 and P7 clearly reveal that PWs.1 and 2 sustained very serious injuries including grievous hurt. It seems that PW1 had sustained, the fracture of right patella among other serious injuries. Likewise, PW2 sustained communited fracture of olecranon with dislocation on his right elbow, fracture of spine with dislocation C2-C3, fracture on the base of the third metacarpal of right hand and a series of other serious injuries.

7. By considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the said offences. From the discussions made above, I do not find anything to interfere with the conviction passed by the court below. At the same time, the learned counsel for t