V.R. RAMAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition the petitioner assails the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 304A IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that at 8.30 p.m. on 1.4.92 at the scene of the crime the revision petitioner was driving his lorry along the M.C. road from north to south in a rash and negligent manner. On account of rashness and negligence of the revision petitioner the vehicle driven by him hit against a bicycle in which the deceased Johny was proceeding in the opposite direction. The accident allegedly took place on a 8.40 Mtrs. wide road; but the spot of the accident, it is alleged, was 2.90 Mtrs. to the east of the western kerb. In the First Information Statement that was registered there was no allegation against the revision petitioner; nor was there even an allegation that the petitioner's vehicle or any lorry was involved in the accident. The First Information Statement was registered at 10.30 p.m. on the same night. Investigation commenced. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 - the Investigating Officer filed the final report.

(3.) P .W.1 is the owner of the lorry who had given Ext.P1 letter to P.W.11 to confirm that he is the owner of the lorry and that the vehicle at the time of the accident was entrusted to the revision petitioner as a paid driver. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. He was not an eye witness. The alleged accident took place at about 8.30 p.m. He received information shortly thereafter. He rushed to the scene of the occurrence. His brother was lying injured there. Local people had assembled. He along with some others took his brother in a vehicle to the Doctor. The Doctor pronounced him dead. Thereafter, he lodged Ext.P2 First Information Statement at 10.30 p.m. P.Ws.3 and 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. According to them, they had witnessed the occurrence as they were available at the scene of the occurrence. They are persons residing in that locality. According to them, it was a case of hit and run. The vehicle involved in the accident was driven away without stopping after the incident by its driver to the southern side. It will be relevant to note that the final report is filed under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as also Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act. But both P.Ws.3 and 4 claimed that they had identified the number of the vehicle and were also in a position to identify the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. According to them, the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle. P.W.5 is the attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. The scene mahazar shows that the road at the relevant place had a width of 8.40 Mtrs. The cycle involved in the accident was at the middle of the road. 2.90 Mtrs. is the distance from the western kerb to the front wheel of the bicycle on the west; whereas 3 Mtrs. is the distance from the rear wheel of the vehicle to the eastern kerb of the road. There were tyre marks to the south of the scene of the occurrence. Blood marks were also available near the scene of the occurrence. P.W.6 is the attestor to Ext.P4 under which Ext.P10 General Vehicle Record of the lorry of P.W.1 was seized by the police. That shows that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. P.W.7 is the attestor to Ext.P5 inquest report prepared by P.W.11 Investigating Officer. That shows that even at 11 a.m. on 2/4/92 when the inquest report was closed they had no clue that a lorry was involved in the accident. P.W.8 is the Head Constable who registered Ext.P6 FIR on the basis of Ext.P2 P.W.9 Doctor conducted the post -mortem examination and issued Ext.P7 certificate. P.W.10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle of P.W.1 on 6/4/92 and issued Ext.P8 inspection report which showed that there were marks on the vehicle which suggested involvement in a recent accident. P.W.11, as stated earlier, completed the investigation and filed the final report. According to him, the petitioner appeared and produced the vehicle before the police on 6/4/1992. He had on 7/4/92 submitted Ext.P9 report to the court to confirm the number of the vehicle involved in the accident as also the complicity of the petitioner herein. Ext.P12 report was filed to include the allegations under Section 134 of the M.V. Act.