SANKU BALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C. C. No. 173 of 1971 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottarakkara, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1971 before the Sessions Court, Quilon, is the revision petitioner. He was charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkal, for offences under S.279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of a child while driving his car MSX. 9049 on 15-6-71. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Trial Court and his driving licence was suspended for a period of three months among other minor sentences imposed. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal.

(2.) The main attack against the finding of the Trial Court is that there has not been a proper appreciation of the evidence in the case and that the learned Magistrate was to a large extent swayed by the consideration that the accused was seen on the wrong side of the road at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the mere fact that the car was driven on the wrong side in broad day light when there were no other vehicles on the road can never be taken as proof of negligence on the part of the driver. I am in agreement with him to this extent. However, it cannot be said that the evidence in this case has been disregarded by the Trial Court. The only point urged by the appellant before the Sessions Court appears to be whether the person who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the incident was the accused himself or not. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the other evidence in the case to find out whether the offences were made out or not. He confined himself to the question of identification only and came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner himself who was driving the vehicle and therefore the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

(3.) This is a defective approach in criminal cases. Unlike in a civil case, a criminal Court has to arrive at its conclusion on the evidence irrespective of any concession by the counsel. Eventhough the counsel took the risk in arguing the case only on the point of identification of the accused, the appellate Court has to consider the evidence in toto and come to an independent conclusion,