Panali Habeeb vs Usman and State of Kerala

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Petitioner, the de facto complainant in C.C.220/2004 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Manjeri filed this petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed u/s 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate and confirmed by Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.R.P.59/2007. Prosecution case is that on 20/3/2004 at about 7.30 p.m the accused drove bus No. KL-10/C-3999, rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and hit against car No. MH/06-M.1308 driven by deceased Basheer, while it was proceeding along Manjeri-Kozhikode road at Pullanoor. The bus was proceeding from Manjeri to Kozhikode and the car was proceeding from Kozhikode to Manjeri. Basheer succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution examined eighteen witnesses. Pws.1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case. PW4, a relative of the deceased Basheer, who furnished the information, was not an eye witness. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar and Ext.P3 trip sheet. Pws.6 and 8 are the attestors to Ext.P4 inquest report. Petitioner is the brother of deceased Basheer. PW9 is the doctor who examined PW3 and issued Ext.P5 wound certificate. PW10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW12 is the conductor of the bus. PW13 had conducted postmortem examination and prepared the postmortem certificate. Learned Magistrate on appreciating the evidence found that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence to find that the incident occurred due to negligent driving of the accused and acquitted him u/s 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence, petitioner filed Crl.R.P.59/2007. The order of the revisional court establish that entire evidence was properly reappreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and found that appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate was proper. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the petition.

Petition is dismissed.