JOHN P.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The judgment dated 30/11/2004 in Crl. Appeal No. 463/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam and the conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam in CC No. 671/2002 are under challenge. The conviction is under Sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The sentence imposed is rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - under Sec. 279 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - under Sec. 304(A) of IPC. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in this case are as follows:

(2.) The prosecution examined three eyewitnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. Altogether there are 10 witnesses on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, Ext. D1 is seen marked. After appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below found that the revision petitioner/accused committed the offence.

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before me that here is a case where the Courts below committed illegality and the impugned judgments are perverse in nature. It is a fit case where the revisional powers of the Court have to be invoked. It is the submission that the Courts below erred in its finding regarding the criminal negligence attributed against the petitioner. It is an admitted case that it is a case of collision. It is the further submission that admittedly the lorry was on its proper side of the road and the case of the prosecution is that the bus was trying to turn to go towards Kalathippadi. For the said purpose, the bus was moving in a reverse direction. The bus was then moving across the road. It is submitted that the three witnesses examined by the prosecution mutually contradict in this aspect. It is also submitted that PW 1 is none other than the son of the deceased, whereas the second witness is an employee of the deceased and third witness is none other than the driver of the bus involved in the accident.