VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the accused in S.T. No. 3207/1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy charged with offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. After an elaborate trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A I.P.C and imposed imprisonment. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the revision petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Thrissur with a Criminal Appeal No. 414/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the matter afresh and found that the appeal was devoid of any merit. Hence, it was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner has come up in revision.

(2.) HEARD Sri. Wilson Urmese the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. K.K. Rajeev the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) TO find out whether there is any illegality in the proceedings, I have gone through the evidence. PW1 is the person, who gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement, wherein the negligence on the part of the petitioner is specifically spelt out. At the time of his examination, he completely supported the prosecution case that the petitioner was responsible for causing the accident by his rash and negligent driving of a tipper lorry through a public road. Prosecution case revealed through Ext.P1 and the oral evidence of witnesses is that on 25 -05 -1994 at about 1.15 p.m., the lorry driven by the petitioner which was proceeding from Thrissur side to Ernakulam side collided with a tempo van which came from the opposite direction. Two persons died in the accident and various persons sustained injuries. In the evidence of PW1, he has clearly stated that the petitioner was responsible for causing the accident and this aspect has not been challenged effectively in cross examination. Similarly, other injured witnesses also stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. I have gone through the scene mahazar. It shows that clear visibility for 150 metres to both sides from the accident spot was available. The road at the place of occurrence lies in north -south direction with 7 metre wide tarred portion. On both sides, 1.6 metre wide road margins were available. As per the scene mahazar, the accident was 2.58 metres east from the southern tar end. The lorry driven by the petitioner was supposed to pass through the eastern side from the middle portion of the road. The place of occurrence indicates that the lorry was on the wrong side of the road. Further the right side of the lorry was damaged in the collision. This document is not challenged effectively. The material documents produced by the prosecution and relied on by the courts below coupled with oral evidence clearly show that the conviction of the petitioner under the aforementioned sections is perfectly legal. There is no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the courts below.