SRINIVASAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, under Section 338, Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for one month: the sentences are to run concurrently. In addition he has been convicted under Section 46 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. The accused has also been directed to pay to the Electricity department a compensation of Rs. 178 for causing the loss of an electric post by dashing his, vehicle against it.

(2.) The accused-Petitioner was a police constable functioning as driver of the police van. On 7th April, 1967 at about 2 p.m. he drove the van No. K.L.T. 6278 from west to east along the Vattiyurkavu-Vellayakkadavu road in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of liquor and dashed against a murukku tree which stood on the southern side of the road. Then the vehicle was swerved to the left and in so doing it dashed against an electric post which stood on the northern side of the road. The electric post was very badly damaged. After the impact with the electric post, the van proceeded further northward and hit against P.W. 2, a shop-man, who was sitting on the pattara of the shop which was at the western-most end of the shops. P. W. 2 sustained very severe injuries and was thrown into the road. Damage was caused to the shop room also. The vehicle then moved further and bit against one Prabhakaran Nair who died at the spot. The vehicle also knocked down one Ramachandran, causing very serious injuries to him. Both Prabhakaran Nair and Ramachandran were standing on the verandah of the shop. Ramachandran was immediately taken to the medical college hospital, Trivandrum, where he succumbed to the injuries at about 10-40 in the night. The van finally came to a standstill on the road in front of the shop. The accused immediately got out of the van, pulled out and broke the brake-fluid pipe and tried to run away from the scene; but he was caught hold of by the people who gathered around and handed him over to the police. On these facts charges were framed against him under Sections 304A, 338 and 279, Indian Penal Code and under Section 46 of the Indian Electricity Act (IX of 1910). The accused denying the charge stated that he was, at the time, in his wife's house, which is close by and was attracted to the road by the noise and commotion that came from there. As nobody was seen at the time by the side of the van he was forced to stand there to watch the van; but later he was made the accused and the case was foisted on him. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional District Judge, in appeal, have accepted the prosecution case in full and have entered the conviction.

(3.) On a consideration of the evidence and probabilities of the case I am satisfied that the conviction has rightly been entered by the Courts below. The occurrence is well proved by the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1 is one Rasheed, who was proceeding on his bicycle towards the Vattiyurkavu junction. At that time the police van was coming from the junction at dangerous speed. He was frightened by the speed, of the van and at once he got down from the bicycle and stood by the side of the road. Just then he saw the van hitting against the murukku tree, then the lamp-post and then getting into the shop and causing hurt to P.W. 2 and the two deceased persons. He also swears to the breaking of the brake-fluid pipe by the accused. The accused then tried to escape from the scene; but was caught hold of by the people who had collected there. P.W. 2 is the injured shopman. He was seated on the pattara of the shop when the vehicle came all of a sudden and hit against him. P.W. 3 is one Vasude-van who owns a shop at the junction where Vattiyurkavu road turns towards Vellayakkadavu. The murukku tree which was the first target stood in front of this witness's shop. Seeing the commotion the witness got out of the shop and looked up and saw rest of the occurrence also. The breaking of the brake fluid pipe and his attempt to run away from the scene have also been spoken to by this witness. No circumstances whatever have been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit any of these eye witnesses and both the Courts below have accepted their evidence in full. I see no justification to interfere with the finding of the Courts below regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place, relying on the evidence of these witnesses.