ALEXANDER STEPHEN, S/O. STEPHEN, AMAL NIVAS, THEKKEVILA MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Calendar Case No. 271/1996 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam is the petitioner herein. The prosecution was under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was as follows:

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the bus in question. According to him, none of the three eye witnesses, who were examined for proving the guilt of the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the bus. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by the narration of the events by the witnesses, it cannot be found with any amount of certainty that the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence in driving the bus. He also points out several discrepancies in the depositions of the eye witnesses namely, PW2, PW3 and PW4, which would cast serious doubts as to whether they witnessed the incident at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, submit that the prosecution has palpably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt and in any event, the petitioner is eminently entitled to the benefit of doubt in view of the circumstances explained by him.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that this is an eminently fit case where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply. He points out that, the incident occurred within the premises of the A.R. Camp and not in a public road. Admittedly, the bus was being driven in between buildings. The A.R. Camp houses plenty of Policemen. Therefore, naturally, any driver, who drives the vehicles inside the A.R. Camp, especially when he is reversing the vehicle should expect a policeman at any time and should drive the vehicle with the special diligence and care required of circumstances. He points out that, insofar as the space between the buildings is very narrow, the petitioner should have exercised care and caution which he has not done and therefore, the circumstances speak for itself to the effect that the accident occurred, only because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by petitioner. Therefore, he would argue in support of the judgments of the courts below.