SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11305

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
CHANDRASEKHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 431/2004



The case underscores the obligations of drivers to exercise due care and the legal implications of failing to adhere to traffic regulations, leading to serious consequences.

Headnote:

Negligence - IPC - [Sections 279, 338, 304A] - The court confirmed the trial court's conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries, emphasizing the driver's duty to keep to the correct side of the road and the sufficiency of evidence proving negligence.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was involved in a vehicular accident resulting in death and injuries due to alleged rash and negligent driving. The trial court convicted the appellant under various sections of IPC, which was upheld by the Sessions Court.

Issues: Whether the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving leading to death and injuries, and whether the identification of the appellant as the driver was adequately supported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that negligent driving must be established on the facts and the driver’s responsibility to avoid accidents by adhering to traffic regulations.

Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed in part, confirming conviction but reducing the sentences.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Alathur Police station, alleging offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alathur in C.C. No.662/1994. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He took a defence of innocence. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 304 A and 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The driving licence of the appellant was suspended for a period of two years under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, Criminal appeal No. 19/1998 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the the appeal was made over, by Judgment dated 19/1/2004 dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

3. The prosecution case is that at 7.45 A.M. on 16/07/1994, a lorry bearing registration No.TDB/8159 driven by the appellant from east to west along the National Highway hit against a car bearing registration No. KCF 6165 driven by PW2 in the opposite direction with a passenger by name Cheriyan and as a result of the accident PW2 and Cheriyan sustained severe injuries to which Cheriyan succumbed. According to the prosecution, the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the revision petitioner.

4. Soon after the incident, locals gathered. PW1, one of the local person along with others who arrived there rushed PW2 and and Cheriyan to the Thaluk Head Quarters Hospital Alathur.

Cheriyan was declared dead. PW2 was given first aid by PW7, then Civil Surgeon and referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. PW1, in return, rushed to Alathur Police Station and gave Exhibit P1 First Information Statement before PW11, the Circle Inspector of Police. He recorded Exhibit P1 and on the basis of Exhibit P1, a case as a Crime No. 239/94 was registered for offences under Sections 279 and 337 and 304 A IPC against the revision Petitioner for which Exhibit P1 (a) first information report was prepared. He took over the investigation, rushed to the spot of occurrence and prepared the scene mahazar, questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the appellant and got the Post Mortem examination done on the body of Cheriyan. Both vehicles were got inspected by PW8, the Assistant Motor vehicle Inspector, seized the trip sheet of the car and GVR of the lorry. During the course of the investigation, he filed Exhibit P9 report to delet Section 337 IPC and add Section 338 IPC. After completing the investigation, PW11 submitted the charge sheet before the trial court alleging offences under Sections 279, 338 and

304 A IPC.

5. I have heard the Advocate Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Lowsy, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment of the courts below as well as the relevant portions of the evidence on record.

6. The occurrence of the accident is not disputed. The only dispute that was raised before me is the identity of the revision petitioner and the negligence aspect. The occurrence of the accident was deposed by PWs 1 to 5. Exhibit P11 scene mahazar prepared by PW11 would give a brief description of the lie of both vehicles after the accident. Both vehicles were at the northern side of the National Highway at Erattakulam. As I mentioned earl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top