ASHOKAN S/O SREEKANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No. 78 of 1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and for six months imprisonment under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to be undergone consecutively. The licence of the accused was suspended for a period of two years. In Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, the Court of Session, Thalassery confirmed both the conviction and the sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

(2.) THE petitioner raises two contentions. The first is regarding the identity of the accused. According to the petitioner, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The other contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle, the accident was not on account of any rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but because of circumstances beyond his control. According to him, the accident occurred because a mini lorry suddenly entered into the main road in which the offending vehicle and the vehicle in which the victims were travelling was running in the opposite direction as a result of which the vehicle had to be suddenly turned which resulted in the collision.

(3.) I have gone through the deposition of the witnesses and also the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below. PWs 1,2,3,7,8 and 14 completely supported the prosecution case. They deposed that the petitioner while driving his bus suddenly overtook the tempo van bearing Registration No. KRN. 5189, of which PW 14 was the driver, hit against the other bus coming from the opposite direction, causing the accident on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. Despite extensive cross-examination of these witnesses, absolutely nothing was brought out for giving credence to the case of the petitioner that a mini lorry came from a pocket road, as a result of which the petitioner was forced to suddenly turn the vehicle resulting in the accident. On the other hand, the eye witnesses categorically asserted that the petitioner rashly and negligently overtook the tempo van bearing Registration No. KRN. 5189 and hit the bus coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. In fact PW14, driver of the tempo van bearing Registration No. KRN 5189, would give evidence to the fact that the petitioner's bus first hit against the door of the tempo van on the right side. The site plan prepared also completely corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses. The scene of occurrence was on the southern side of the road which was the wrong side of the petitioner's vehicle. In view of the above evidence, I have absolutely no hesitation to agree with the appreciation of evidence by the courts below.