LAWS(KER)-1984-3-25

STATE OF KERALA Vs. ABDULLA

Decided On March 22, 1984
STATE OF KERALA Appellant
V/S
ABDULLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent, accused in C. C. No. 1527 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thaliparamba, who stood charged for offences under S.279 and 337 IPC. and S.89(a) and (b) read with S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 24-10-1979 at about 9.15 p. m., on the public road at Kanhirangad in Kuttieri village, the respondent drove lorry KLD. 1492 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused the lorry to dash against Vammayeppilli Chacko who thereby sustained simple injuries and the respondent did not give timely intimation to the police nor attempt to secure medical attention to the injured. The injured, Cw. 1 himself gave first information to the police on the basis of which Cw. 10 registered a case. Cw. 11 investigated the case and laid the charge sheet. In the charge, as many as 11 witnesses had been cited. Of them, Cw. 1 was the injured and Cws. 2 to 7 eye - witnesses. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the lorry was cited as CW. 8 and the doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificate was cited as C. W. 9. C. Ws. 3 to 5 were examined by the prosecution as Pws. 1 to 3. These witnesses stated that they did not see the occurrence and were cross examined by the prosecutor by leave of court. No other witness was produced by the prosecution. Thereupon the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Trial Court did not discharge its duty and function as enjoined by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) and that has led to failure of justice which has to be rectified. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the prosecution did not make a sincere attempt to produce the witnesses or to have summons served on them or to secure their presence in court and therefore this court should not interfere with the acquittal.