Sankaran vs The State of Kerala

Honourable Mr. Justice. P.S. Gopinathan Saturday

The Circle Inspector of Police, Cherthala, who was examined as PW 10 in C.C. No. 945/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offences u/s 279 and 304A I.P.C. with an allegation that at 6 A.M., on 2/5/1996, the revision petitioner drove a lorry bearing Registration No. KL-O1/6-8186 along the National Highway at Alappuzha-Ernakulam stretch in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and knocked down late Raveendran, who was walking though the side of the road, and was dragged to a distance of 32 metres causing severe injuries following which he had an instantaneous death. Revision petitioner pleaded not guilty before the trial court when the particulars of the offences were read over and explained. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. During cross-examination of PWs 2 and 3, Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence. One witness was examined as DW 1. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year u/s 304 A I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 279 I.P.C. with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The revision petitioner was further disqualified u/s 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act, from holding the driving licence for a period of one year.

Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 70/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 16/9/2003, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

I have heard Adv. Sri. P.S. Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Lisha, the learned Government Pleader. Judgment impugned was also perused.

PWs 1 and 2, two pedestrians would depose that at 6 A.M., on 2/5/1996 while they were walking along the western side of the National Highway towards north, late Raveendran was walking in front of them. A lorry driven by the revision petitioner knocked down late Raveendran from back and was dragged to a distance of 80 to 90 feet. Raveendran was badly injured and had an instantaneous death. Negligence was attributed against the revision petitioner. PW 1 would further depose that he gave Exhibit P1 First Information Statement, on the basis of which the case was registered. PW 7, the Circle Inspector of Police had proved the recording of Exhibit P1 given by PW 1. Exhibit P1 would corroborate with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.

Exhibit P2 is the inquest report wherein PWs 3 and 5 were attesters. The inquest was conducted at the spot. A description of the scene is given in Exhibit P2. It would show that the spot of occurrence is just 31 cm. towards east from the western tar end and the body was dragged to a distance of 32 metres from the spot. The body was so badly injured and lying dead. The fact that the victim was dragged to a distance of 32 mtrs would show that the revision petitioner was not only negligent but also at a high speed beyond the control.

The evidence of PW 8, who conducted the autopsy on the body and issued Exhibit P3 Postmortem certificate, would show that the victim had severe injuries. Many of his bones were fractured. Skin was peeled off from several parts of the body. There was tyre mark on the back of the body and that the victim died due to bleeding, shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury to vital organs and limbs. Cause of death is not at all disputed.

The evidence of PW 9 would show that he inspected the lorry involved in the accident and issued Exhibit P5 certificate. According to PW 9, the lorry had no mechanical defect. Therefore, mechanical defect cannot be attributed as a cause for the accident.

The evidence of PW 6, the Circle Inspector would show that during the course of investigation, he seized Exhibit P6 GVR (Goods Vehicle Record). Exhibit P6 also would show that the revision petitioner was the driver of the lorry. Exhibit P6 would corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identity of the revision petitioner as the driver of the lorry. There is little material to conclude that the deceased had anyway contributed any negligence to cause the accident. He was walking along the side of the road. There is also nothing to show that either PWs 1 and 2 or the Investigating Officer had any axe to grind against the revision petitioner so as implicate him with the offence of this nature. I find no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence or coming to a conclusion of guilty of the revision petitioner. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. Having due regard to the nature and manner in which the incident occurred, I find that the sentence awarded by the Courts below is also not harsh or exorbitant so as to be rectified in revision. Even if the trial court had gone wrong in sentencing, it is only towards leniency. Revision petition is devoid of merits.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court which shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.