Kerala High Court
Soman vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 28 November, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 534 of 2003 (C)
--------------------------------
CRA 88/1994 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I,
PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 28-11-2002
CC 111/1993 of C.J.M., PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 23-09-1994
------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-
--------------------------------------------
SOMAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
PILLAVILAYIL VEEDU, JNETTOOR MURI,
KULANADA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-
----------------------------------------------
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.534 of 2003
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December 2017
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC in C.C.No.111/1993 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 5.40 p.m. on 13.5.1993, he drove the bus No.KL-3/A 37 rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life along the Puthukulam - Pathanamthitta public road, at Malayalappuzha, the said bus hit on the jeep No.KL-3/9966, that came from the opposite side, and in the said accident, some passengers sustained injuries, and one passenger died. The accused pleaded not guilty, when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him.
2. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P15 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was Crl.R.P. No.534 of 2003 -: 2 :- sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304(A) IPC, by judgment dated 23.9.1994. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session with Crl.A.No.88/1994. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) - I, Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence, on the ground that there is no legal and satisfactory evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Of the material witnesses, PW3 was the driver of the jeep involved in the accident, PW1 was a passenger in the jeep, and PW2 was a passenger in the bus. PW6 is the person, who runs a sawmill on the side of the road at the place of accident, and PW4 was the cleaner of the jeep. On a perusal of the Ext.P10 scene mahazar, I find that the place of accident identified by the police is one metre to the public road from the northern road margin. Admittedly, the bus was proceeding from east to west, and the jeep was proceeding from west to east. Crl.R.P. No.534 of 2003 -: 3 :- The jeep driver would say that the jeep driven by him was proceeding along the northern side of the road, from west to east.
5. On a perusal of the evidence given by the material witnesses, I find that there is no consistency in their evidence as regards the spot of accident, or the reason for the accident. PW1 would say in evidence that there is a sawmill on the southern side of the road, whereas, the evidence of the other witnesses is that it is on the northern side of the road. PW1 would say that the left corner of the front side of the bus hit on the jeep. But the evidence of PW2 is that the right corner of the front side of the bus hit on the jeep. PW3 would say that on seeing the bus coming in high speed, he took the jeep to the extreme left side, and the evidence of the witness is that the jeep was in fact on the untarred portion of the road. Any way, PW1 is definite that the left corner of the front side of the bus hit on the jeep. If this is true, the jeep must have deviated to the southern side. PW3 is definite in cross examination that the jeep was in fact on the untarred portion of the road, but he does not say whether it was on the southern side, or on the northern side. This particular aspect was not elicited by the Assistant Public Crl.R.P. No.534 of 2003 -: 4 :- Prosecutor during trial. Thus, it is brought out that the jeep was seen at the untarred portion of the road, and one witness is definite that the left corner of the front portion of the bus hit on the jeep. If these two versions are read together, the only possibility is that the jeep must have deviated from the correct side to the southern side, and this will indicate negligence on the part of the jeep driver also. It is here the definite defence projected by the accused assumes importance that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the jeep driver. I find some substance in the defence projected by the accused.
6. As regards the material aspects, I find that the witnesses are not consistent as regards the exact spot of accident, the exact side of the road where the accident occurred, etc. PW1 did not identify the accused as the driver of the bus. Of Course PW3 identified the accused as driver of the bus, but his evidence regarding rashness and negligence is not definite. I find that the witnesses have only casually stated about the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. At the same time, a close examination of the evidence given by the material witnesses would show that there was negligence on the Crl.R.P. No.534 of 2003 -: 5 :- part of the jeep driver also. If the left corner of the front side of the bus hit on the jeep, and when the witnesses are definite that the jeep was on the untarred portion of the road, the only finding possible is that the jeep must have deviated from the correct side to the southern side. Thus, there is reason to believe that the jeep driver had also contributed to the accident. In such a situation, it would be unjust to find that the bus driver solely responsible to the accident by his rashness and negligence. The benefit of this doubt regarding the actual reason for the accident can be given to the accused.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is found not guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC, and he is acquitted of those offences in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner in C.C.No.111/1993 of the trial court, confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/1994 by the Court of Session will stand set aside, and the revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/20.12.2017