Kerala High Court
A.T.Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3629 of 2006
-------------------------------
CRA 460/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, MANJERI
DATED 21.7.2006
CC 1436/2001 of J.M.F.C., MALAPPURAM DATED 17.8.2004
--------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-
-----------------------------------------
A.T.SUBRAHMANIYAN, S/O.THAMI,
ALAYAKKATHODI HOUSE, KODUR AMSUM,
THANNIYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :-
----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-
2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING :-
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January 2018
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C No.1436/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. He faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and also under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegation that at about 1.05 p.m on 25.09.2001, he drove the Jeep No. KLM-7987 rashly and negligently, and without licence, so as to endanger human life, along the Malappuram-Manjeri public road, the said jeep hit on a motor cycle that came from the opposite side at Munduparamba, and in the said accident, the rider of the motor cycle died. The crime was registered by the police on the first information statement given by the son of the deceased. After investigation, the police submitted final report. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty, when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006 -: 2 :-
2. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the rider of the motorcycle was also responsible for the accident. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but he was found guilty under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of `1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- under Section 304(A) IPC, by judgment dated 17.08.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.Appeal No.460/2004. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006 -: 3 :- 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.
4. The short point for consideration in this revision is whether there is any reason for interference by this Court in revision on the only ground of illegality or irregularity in the conviction, or the findings made by the courts below concurrently, or whether there is legal and sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Of the twelve witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 and PW3 are the material witnesses. PW2 is only the first informant, and he is the son of the deceased. He had not witnessed the accident. He made complaint on the basis of what he heard from others. PW1, the material witness turned hostile during trial. Though cross examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be brought out to incriminate the accused. Then what remains is only the evidence of PW3. The evidence of the other witnesses is only formal. So, the Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006 -: 4 :- question is whether the evidence given by the sole witness (PW3) will prove the essentials of the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. PW3 pointed out the accused as the driver of the jeep, that hit down the motorcycle which came from the opposite side. The accident happened at Munduparamba, before the Government Arts College, Malappuram, where the road lies north - south, as revealed by the scene mahazar. PW3 has stated that the vehicle driven by the accused was proceeding from south to north, and the motorcycle came from the opposite direction. He stated that the accident occurred when the jeep driver overtook another vehicle in over speed. The road at the place of accident is 10 meters wide. When cross examined on the material aspects, PW3 stated that he does not know, what vehicle was in fact overtaken by the accused. He stated that he had given statement regarding over speed to the police, but, the defence marked a contradiction on this aspect, that the witness had not in fact given such a statement. He also stated that he saw and identified the driver of the jeep at the Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006 -: 5 :- police station. This gives an indication that he had not in fact clearly seen and identified the driver of the jeep at the spot of accident. Any way, the witness is not certain or definite regarding the reason for the accident. The scene mahazar shows that the exact spot of accident is 1.5 meters to the public road from the eastern road margin. There is nothing to show that the jeep was driven in over speed by the accused. If at all he was in good speed, it cannot be said to be rashness or negligence because the road at the place of accident is free with a width of 10 meters. Any way, when asked about the reason for the accident, PW3 could not say anything definite. His evidence regarding identity of the driver is also suspicious. Thus, I find that the evidence given by PW3 is not sufficient and satisfactory to sustain the conviction against the revision petitioner. When the prosecution relies on the evidence of a sole witness, that evidence must be fool proof, and beyond any reasonable doubt. But, in this case, I find that the evidence of PW3 is not sufficient as fool proof evidence to prove the offences alleged, Crl.R.P. No.3629 of 2006 -: 6 :- that the vehicle was driven rashly, or negligently by the accused, or that the accident occurred due to the sole rashness and negligence on the part of the jeep driver. There is something to indicate that there was some fault on the part of the rider of the motorcycle also.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 279 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.1436/2001 of the trial court, confirmed in Crl.A.No.460/2004 by the Court of Session will stand set aside, and the revision petitioner is released from prosecution.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/lsn 6.1.2018