BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , the accused in CC No. 521/1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Aluva, was convicted and sentenced for the offences under S.279 and S.304(A) of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur in Crl A No. 338/2000. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re - appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on 25/09/1994 at about 8 a.m., while petitioner was driving Trucker KLM - 8544 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along Aluva - Paravur Public Road, it hit on Sivan, who was riding a bicycle from west to east along the same road, near YMCA building at Aluva. Sivan sustained serious injuries and was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, from where, PW 4, the doctor, examined him and prepared Ext. P2 wound certificate. The injured died from the hospital. PW 11, the doctor, conducted the autopsy and prepared Exhibit P8 postmortem certificate. Getting information from the hospital, PW 10, the Head Constable, reached Medical Trust Hospital and finding the injured unconscious and there was no other eye witness to unveil the details of the accident, returned back to the police station and registered the case under Ext. P5 FIR. PW 10 investigated the case. PW 14, the Circle Inspector of Police, took over the investigation. He furnished a report incorporating the name of the petitioner as the accused and also the offence under S.279 and S.338 of Indian Penal Code. After the death of the injured, Ext. P9 report was submitted incorporating S.304(A) of Indian Penal Code also. After completing the investigation PW 14 laid the charge. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.

(3.) LEARNED Magistrate, on the evidence, found that deceased Sivan died consequent to the injuries sustained when the bicycle, which he was riding, was hit by a Trucker from behind and the incident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Trucker. Based on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, petitioner was found to be the driver. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also accepted the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and held that identity of the petitioner as the driver of the Trucker was established. Argument of the learned counsel is that evidence do not establish the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the Trucker and therefore, the conviction is not sustainable.