ABDULLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defacto complainant, PW 5, in C.C. 132/78 has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Manantoddy acquitting the second respondent herein of the charge under S.304A IPC.

(2.) PW 12, Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No. 29/78 laid a charge against the 2nd respondent on the allegation that on 8th March 1978 at 1.30 p.m. at Porunnanur amsom, Kringari desom, the 2nd respondent drove jeep K.L.P. 5229 in such a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, that while driving the jeep from south to north drove it along the extreme western side of the road and struck a boy standing in the western foot path of the road, as a result of which the boy sustained fatal injuries. The occurrence was caused by the excessive speed, the careless way of driving and the overloading the front seat of the jeep in such a fashion that the driver could not sit properly. PW 5, the father of the injured boy was informed about the occurrence. The boy was taken to the Government Hospital, Manantoddy, where he died. On intimation received from the hospital, Head Constable of Police, PW 3 attached to the Manantoddy Police Station went to the hospital and recorded statement of PW 5 and registered a case under Ext. P5 F.I.R. as Crime No. 57/TR/78 under S.279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was transferred to Vellamunda Police Station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place, where the Sub Inspector of Police, PW 12 registered a case under Ext. P10 F.I.R. He prepared a body mahazar Ext. P11 and scene mahazar, Ext. P8 and subsequently prepared inquest report, Ext. P9. The vehicle was got inspected by PW 4, who prepared Ext. P6 report. Post mortem was conducted by PW 1, who issued Ext. P2 certificate. A plan was prepared by the Village Assistant, PW 2. On 9th March 1978 itself all the eye witnesses and other material witnesses were questioned and ultimately charge was laid by PW 12 under S.304A I.P.C. The second respondent pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P11. The defence denied the prosecution allegation of rash or negligent driving and contended that while the jeep was being driven carefully at a normal speed, the boy suddenly crossed the road and was struck by the jeep and it was an inevitable accident. The Trial Court held that the prosecution evidence cannot be relied on acquitted the second respondent of the charge under S.304A I.P.C. against him. This is now challenged by the defacto complainant.

(3.) I am conscious of the limitations on the jurisdiction of this court to interfere with an acquittal in a revision filed by a private party. This court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because the trial Magistrate has taken a wrong view either on facts or of law or has erred in appreciation of evidence or circumstances. However, if there exist glaring defects in procedure or manifest error on points of law resulting in miscarriage of justice or if manifest illegality has been committed, this court will be justified in interfering even in these proceedings in order to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. I shall consider the arguments addressed before me, in the light of these salutary principles.