KESAVAN GOPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was concurrently found guilty by the courts below,of offences punishable under S.279,337,338 and 304(A)IPC.It was found that the petitioner drove mini lorry KET 2793 at or about 10 -20 P.M.on 6 -8 -1982 in a rash and negligent manner causing injuries to PWs.6,7 and one Sukumaran Nair,and causing the death of one Sivanandan.Another lorry KRE 1864 was parked on the road and PW -7 was standing on the platform of the lorry and PW -8 in front of it.Accused,the evidence shows,came like a hurricane and hit the other lorry,pushing it forward causing it to run over.PW -8 and throwing PW -7 off,injuring both.Cabin of the mini lorry was dented and smashed,injuring Sukumaran Nair and Sivanandan,who were in the cabin.The door of the mini lorry flew open due to the violent impact,and P.Ws.2 and 3 saw the accused falling out through the right side door(driver 's door ).They took the injured and nursed them and gave them water,Sivadandan died.PWs 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 speak to the occurrence while PW12,owner of the mini lorry says that the accused was the driver.PW22 Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the Vehicle and issued Ext.P15 certificate,noticing that the mechanical condition was good.

(2.) COURT of Session relying on the evidence of PWs 2,3 and 12 found that the accused was the person who drove the mini lorry at the material time.Rashness was found based on the evidence of PWs 2,3 and the other attendant circumstances.The violent impact,the fact that the parked lorry was pushed ahead,the width of the road and visibility,were noticed as circumstances relevant,to find rashness.

(3.) BESIDES ,the limits of revisional jurisdiction are well defined.Courts have,time and time again,counselled that the jurisdiction must be exercised with circumspection.In Amar Chand Agarwal v.Shanti Bhai(AIR 1973 SC 799 ),Supreme Court said: Jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the proceeding or there is a manifest error and consequentially a flagrant failure of justice ;. Again,in Pathumma v.Mohammed(AIR 1986 SC 1436)and once again,in Bansilal v.Laxman Singh(AIR 1986 SC 1721) - though a case of acquittal - the limits have been reiterated.Of an appellate court it has been said: It is constantly said,although not sufficiently remembered that the function of a court of appeal is to exercise its powers where it is satisfied that the judge below is wrong,not merely because it is not satisfied that the judge was right ;. (Stepney v.Joffe(1949)2 All ER 256) This is much more so in the case of the revisional court