SIBI JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. He was convicted of the offences punishable under Secs.279 and 304-A or IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Sec.304(A) of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Sec.279 of IPC and in default to undergo S.I for three months.

(2.) ON 03.09.1998 at about 3.00PM, the petitioner, who is the driver of Jeep KL 3B 7727 was driving the same from north to south. The deceased Jayasankar was riding a motor cycle KL 4C 4387 from south to north. The jeep driven by the petitioner, according to the prosecution, hit the motor cycle causing serious injuries to the motor cyclist to which later he succumbed. The prosecution alleged that the jeep was driven by the petitioner in a rash or negligent manner endangering human life and hit the motor cyclist and thus the petitioner has committed the offence as mentioned above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution was not appreciated properly. The place of incident is actually to the south of a Kurisady. It is argued that the witnesses have stated that the incident took place to the north of that Kurisady. That contention does not appear to be correct. Witnesses have also said that the incident took place to the south of Kurisady. It is important to note that the witnesses have stated the distance from the Kurisady to the actual place of incident from memory, after more than one year of the incident. The witnesses are not expected to have a photographic memory of the actual incident spot and to state with precession on a later point of time as to the distance from a particular point to the place of incident. Therefore, the alleged discrepancy in the distance from the Kurisady to the place of incident cannot be blown out of proportion to hold that the evidence was not property appreciated by the two courts below.