ALIYARKUNJU SHAJAHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the revision is with regard to the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kollam confirming the conviction entered against the appellant, who was the conductor of a bus, for the offence under Section 304 A of the I.P.C. and imposing sentence of R.T. for six months therefore. Earlier the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottarakkara, which tried the case, had convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of R.T. for one year for the offence under Section304 A I.P.C. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kollam confirming the conviction entered against the appellant, who was the conductor of a bus, for the offence under Section 304 A of the I.P.C. and imposing sentence of R.T. for six months therefore. Earlier the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottarakkara, which tried the case, had convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of R.T. for one year for the offence under Section304 A I.P.C.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no evidence available in the case to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304-A. Counsel submits that the evidence available in the case is only to the effect that the bus was stopped in a place where a heap of metal had been placed only 80 cms. Away from the door of the bus and that the deceased, who was the wife of PW2, had already alighted from the bus and was on the heap of metal when the vehicle was started and that it was after the said event that the metal gave way resulting in the fall of the victim, along with the metal sliding towards the road in which process her feet got under the wheel of the moving bus resulting in her eventual death.

(3.) This being a revision, a re-appreciation of the entire evidence will not be possible and the evidence can be looked into only to see whether the finding entered by the trial court could have been made on the evidence available. If two views are possible perhaps the view that was taken by the trial court should be upheld. At the same time, this being a criminal case the fundamental principle that the accused should always get the benefit of doubt has to be borne in mind while considering the evidence available.