ELDOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 279 and 304 -A IPC. He faced prosecution before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thrissur in C.C 892 of 2007. The accident alleged in this case occurred in February 2003 and final report was filed in court in 2003 itself. Later the case was transferred from the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Kunnamkulam to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Thrissur. Trial was thus delayed for years. The prosecution case is that at about 12 noon on 14.02.2003, the revision petitioner drove the 'Sonaly' bus No. KL -10 -G -8668, rashly and negligently along the Thrissur - Kunnamkulam public road, that he hit down one Rajan who came riding on his scooter from the opposite direction, and the said Rajan succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. It is alleged that the unfortunate accident occurred solely due to the extreme rashness and negligence on the part of the revision petitioner. He pleaded not guilty to the accusations in the trial Court and claimed to be tried.

(2.) THE prosecution examined 17 witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts. P1 to P11. The revision petitioner maintained a defence of total denial during trial. However no defence evidence was adduced by him. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, or specifically believing the evidence of 2 of the 17 witnesses, and also relying on the proved materials in the scene mahazar the learned Magistrate found him guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304 -A IPC.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records including the evidence given by the material witnesses, I find that the prosecution has well proved the case. Of course, as many as 17 witnesses were examined in the trial court, but the material witnesses among them are only two. They are PW5 who was conductor of the bus involved the accident at the relevant time, and PW15, who was a passenger in the bus. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the incident did not support the prosecution during trial. The Ext. P5 scene mahazar also gives materials and circumstances proving the guilt of the revision petitioner.