VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At 2.15 p.m. on 18-1 -1995 at Krishnapuram along Thiruvananthapuram- Nagercoil Road, a KSRTC bus bearing No.P 403 driven by the revision petitioner and a Maruthi car bearing No.KL01 /B 1819 hit against each other. As a result, Daniel, the driver of the car as well as his father Samuel, one of the passenger sustained injuries to which they succumbed. P.W.1, the nephew of Samuel and P.W.2, the wife of Daniel, who were other passengers in the car had also sustained injuries. P.W.3, a relative of the deceased, who was coming in another car, behind the Maruthi car, gave ExtP-1 statement on the basis of which, P. W.9, a Head Constable attached to Nagercoil Police Station registered a case as Crime No.29/95 for offences under Sections 279,337 and 304 AIPC. The investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara, who after investigation filed final report against the revision petitioner alleging offences under Secs.279,337,338 and 304A IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Neyyattinkara.

(2.) The revision petitioner, who appeared before the trial court in response to the process, pleaded not guilty when particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P-1 to P-9 were marked. After closing the evidence for prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec.313 of the Crl.P.C. He took a plea of total denial. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequentially, the revision petitioner was convicted for offences under Secs.279, 337,338 and 304A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec.279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Sec.304 A IPC with order to run the sentences concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded for other offences. The driving licence of the revision petitioner was suspended for a period of one year. Though the revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No.271/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, he was unsuccessful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner admitted the occurrence. But, he submitted that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the car and that the revision petitioner was neither negligent nor rash.