JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the accused in C.C. No.1084 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM Court-I, Cherthala. He was tried for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation was that on 26.10.2009 at about 5.25 pm he drove the lorry bearing registration No.KL-2/1198 along the National Highway 47 in a rash or negligent manner, which caused it to hit a car which had been parked on the opposite side of the road and in the accident three persons of the same family who were standing near the car sustained injuries and one of them died as a result of the injuries. The petitioner failed to give first aid to the injured and inform the police about the accident. He was convicted of all the offences. For the offence under Section 279 IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for the offence under Section 337 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, for the offence under Section 338 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for the offence under Section 304A IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, for the offence under Section 134(a) to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and for the offence under Section 134(b) to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Default sentence was attached to every offence. The learned Magistrate directed that the sentences shall concurrently. Crl.A.No.200 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha confirming the conviction and the sentences. Its legality and regularity are challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The occurrence of the accident is not disputed. PW2 and PW3 are husband and wife. Shambu was their son. While they were going along the National Highway in their car it broke down at the place of occurrence. It was parked on the western side of the road. PW5, a mechanic, was sent for. He was employed in a nearby workshop. After coming to the spot he went back to his workshop to bring certain tools. It was PW4, a tender coconut vendor, who was doing business near the place of occurrence who made available the assistance of PW5. PW2 to PW5 deposed that the lorry came from the opposite direction and hit on the front side of the car which had been parked on the other side of the road; the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle; immediately after the incident he bolted away. The trial court as well as the appellate court accepted their evidence. Learned counsel submits that their evidence is not acceptable to prove the identity of the driver.