LEKSHMANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.A.62 of 1999 of Sessions Court, Kollam. He was charge sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kottarakkara in C.C.66 of 1996 for offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304A IPC. He was found not guilty under Section 134A r/w 187 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and acquitted thereunder. Against that, he preferred the above criminal appeal where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The charge against the accused is that on 29.7.1995 at 1.50 pm, accused was driving a lorry bearing registration No.KL-5A 754 through the Thiruvananthapuram Kottarakara MC road and reached at Sreerangam curve, Chadayamangalam. He was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle hit against an Ambassodor Car KL-2A 7725 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the driver and passengers in the car sustained serious injuries and the driver and one passenger succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Chadayamangalam police registered the above crime and after completing investigation, laid charge in the trial court. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Ext.P1 to P17 as documentary evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 is inconsistent each other to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Ext.P8 scene plan is contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witness. When occurrence evidence and scene plan are inconsistent with each other, it is difficult to find out the place of occurrence. Therefore the prosecution story is unbelievable. The oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 shows that the incident occurred at a curve, Sreerangam valavu, but such a curve is not located by the Village Officer. If that be the position, accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.