Kerala High Court
First Class Magistrate'S Court vs Unknown on 27 September, 2012
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: S. Siri Jagan
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
The accused in C.C. No. 378/1994 before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate's Court, Ranny, is the petitioner
herein. He was tried for offences punishable under Sec.
279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution case was as follows:
The accused was the driver of KLB 4354, private
bus having the name P.P.M.S. He drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner endangering human life through the
Manimala-Ranny public road from north to south on
05.02.1994 at 3.P.M. and hit CWs 1 and 2, who were
standing on the eastern side of the road at Ittiyappara,
knocking them down causing injuries to them and
thereafter hit one Suthan who was standing on the eastern
footpath of the road. Consequently, he fell down and the
rear back wheel ran over him causing injuries to which he
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
-2-
succumbed. Thereby the accused committed the offences
charged against. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses
and marked 13 documents. The petitioner got Ext. P1
portion of statement of CW2 under Sec. 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code marked as exhibit on the part of the
defence. Considering the evidence adduced before him the
Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s. 279 of
I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence
u/s. 377 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for
the offence u/s. 304(A) of I.P.C. The sentences were
directed to be undergone concurrently. Against the
judgment of the Magistrate, the petitioner filed Criminal
Appeal No. 43/1997 before the Addl. District and Sessions
Judge (Adhoc) Court-I Pathanamthitta, who dismissed the
same. It is challenging the judgments of the courts below
that the petitioner has filed this Cr. R.P.
2. When the matter was taken up, counsel for the
petitioner was absent. Therefore, I was constrained to
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
-3-
consider the matter on the basis of the records available
and after hearing the Public Prosecutor. There is a scene
plan marked as Ext. P5. Ext P2 is the scene mahazar. PWs 1
and 2 have stated that the bus hit them while they were
walking along the road margin. PW2 deposed that the
deceased Suthan was walking along with him by the side of
the road. Of course PW2 turned hostile. But still he does not
dispute the fact that the bus hit them while they were
walking along the road margin. The scene mahazar and the
scene plan also shows that the accident occurred on the
eastern footpath which was a broad one with a width of 4.6
meters. The tarred portion of the road was 8 meters in
width, which was sufficient for 3 buses to pass through at
the same time. The evidence is to the effect that the
accident happened near a market area and a busy junction.
It has also come out in evidence that on the date of accident
there was a harthal and therefore there were very few
vehicles on the road. I am of opinion that these are
sufficient materials to invoke the principle of res ipsa
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
-4-
loquitur. The accident speaks for itself. The above facts
would conclusively prove that the accident could not have
occurred but for the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the vehicle.
3. The next question is as to whether the petitioner
was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. PW5 is
the owner of the vehicle in question. He was served with
Ext. P3 notice by the police to furnish the name and address
of the driver of the vehicle on 05.02.1994 at 3.P.M. He gave
Ext. P3(a) reply in his own handwriting in which he stated
that the accused was the driver of the bus at that time. In
fact on a perusal of the judgments of the courts below it is
clear that the petitioner did not seriously dispute the fact
that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.
4. In the above circumstances, I do not find any
perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower
courts, without which I will not be justified in interfering
with the judgments of the lower courts. In the above
circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Cr. R.P. and
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
-5-
accordingly the same is dismissed.
The petitioner's bail bond is cancelled and the
petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate for
undergoing the sentence forthwith.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
DCS
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
The accused in C.C. No. 378/1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ranny, is the petitioner herein. He was tried for offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was as follows:
The accused was the driver of KLB 4354, private bus having the name P.P.M.S. He drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life through the Manimala-Ranny public road from north to south on 05.02.1994 at 3.P.M. and hit CWs 1 and 2, who were standing on the eastern side of the road at Ittiyappara, knocking them down causing injuries to them and thereafter hit one Suthan who was standing on the eastern footpath of the road. Consequently, he fell down and the rear back wheel ran over him causing injuries to which he Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004 -2- succumbed. Thereby the accused committed the offences charged against. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 13 documents. The petitioner got Ext. P1 portion of statement of CW2 under Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code marked as exhibit on the part of the defence. Considering the evidence adduced before him the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s. 279 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence u/s. 377 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence u/s. 304(A) of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to be undergone concurrently. Against the judgment of the Magistrate, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 43/1997 before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Court-I Pathanamthitta, who dismissed the same. It is challenging the judgments of the courts below that the petitioner has filed this Cr. R.P.
2. When the matter was taken up, counsel for the petitioner was absent. Therefore, I was constrained to Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004 -3- consider the matter on the basis of the records available and after hearing the Public Prosecutor. There is a scene plan marked as Ext. P5. Ext P2 is the scene mahazar. PWs 1 and 2 have stated that the bus hit them while they were walking along the road margin. PW2 deposed that the deceased Suthan was walking along with him by the side of the road. Of course PW2 turned hostile. But still he does not dispute the fact that the bus hit them while they were walking along the road margin. The scene mahazar and the scene plan also shows that the accident occurred on the eastern footpath which was a broad one with a width of 4.6 meters. The tarred portion of the road was 8 meters in width, which was sufficient for 3 buses to pass through at the same time. The evidence is to the effect that the accident happened near a market area and a busy junction. It has also come out in evidence that on the date of accident there was a harthal and therefore there were very few vehicles on the road. I am of opinion that these are sufficient materials to invoke the principle of res ipsa Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004 -4- loquitur. The accident speaks for itself. The above facts would conclusively prove that the accident could not have occurred but for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.
3. The next question is as to whether the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. PW5 is the owner of the vehicle in question. He was served with Ext. P3 notice by the police to furnish the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on 05.02.1994 at 3.P.M. He gave Ext. P3(a) reply in his own handwriting in which he stated that the accused was the driver of the bus at that time. In fact on a perusal of the judgments of the courts below it is clear that the petitioner did not seriously dispute the fact that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.
4. In the above circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, without which I will not be justified in interfering with the judgments of the lower courts. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Cr. R.P. and Crl. Rev. Petition No. 2596 of 2004 -5- accordingly the same is dismissed.
The petitioner's bail bond is cancelled and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate for undergoing the sentence forthwith.
sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE DCS