Johnson Willy v. State of Kerala and S.I. of Police Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1035 OF 2005 ( ) ---------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA NO.330/2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGEII, PALAKKAD DATED 15-03-2005** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.273/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,PALAKKAD DATED 08.08.2003** **------------------------** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :** **----------------------------------------** **JOHNSON WILLY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.C.M.JOSEPH, T.R.CROSS ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682 005.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :** **----------------------------------** **1. S.I OF POLICE KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.P.SATHI** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **NS** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 --------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of June, 2016** ## **O R D E R** This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palakkad. He was charge sheeted in C.C. No.273 of 2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month under Sec.279 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks under Sec.337 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month under Section 304(A) IPC. Against that, the accused preferred the above Crl. Appeal before the Sessions Court, Palakkad which was dismissed by that court. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition. 2. The charge against him is that on 07.05.2002 Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 2 at 8.15 a.m, the accused had driven a lorry bearing registration No.KL7-AD/3577 from Palakkad to Coimbatore through NH47 road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering human life and when it reached at Sapthagiri, the vehicle while overtaking another lorry hit against a car bearing No.TC-1379. As a result, the passengers in the car sustained serious injuries and one Dharmaraj succumbed to the injuries. On getting information, Kasaba Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, the Sub Inspector laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad. In the trial court, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. 3. Heard both sides. Revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power to find out the illegality or irregularity or to correct miscarriage of justice which resulted injury or hardships to those petitioners. While exercising such Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 3 jurisdiction, the court can interfere into such cases where it is found that some substantial injustice has been committed by the courts below. Revision petitioner was charge sheeted by the trial court alleging rash and negligent driving of a lorry which resulted in hitting against another car and one of the passengers sustained serious injuries and subsequently died. Other passengers in the car also sustained injuries. Simply because the accident happened itself is not a ground to fasten criminal liability on the driver of the vehicle. 4. In this case, prosecution examined PW1 and PW2, who are the passengers in the car to prove the occurrence. The evidence of PW1 shows that he was travelling in the car with the deceased from Chavady to Thenary Kovil. When he reached at the place of occurrence, the revision petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking another lorry, it hit on the car. PW1 gave Ext.P1 statement to the Kasaba Police. Even though PW1 was cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing has been brought out to Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 4 discredit his oral testimony. PW2 was also travelling in that vehicle, who supported the evidence of PW1. Analysing the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that the revision petitioner had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner through the road and thereby the accident occurred. I find no illegality in the above evidence of PW1 and PW2. 5. What is seen from the medical evidence of PW4 is that he examined the injured and issued Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 certificates. On that date also he conducted postmortem examination of the deceased Dharmaraj and issued Ext.P6 certificate, which shows that the death was due to injury sustained in the chest, abdomen and head. PW5 examined one Iswaran and issued Ext.P7 certificate. PW7 stated that he also sustained injuries. A close reading of the wound certificates Exts.P2 to P5 and Ext.P7 show that the passengers were treated by PW4 and PW5 and issued the above wound certificates. On a perusal of Ext.P6 it is seen that the deceased Dharmaraj sustained injuries and he died due to the injuries Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 5 sustained in the accident. Accepting the above evidence of 1 to 5, it is clear that both the courts found that the revision petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the place of occurrence for the purpose of attracting the offence under Sec.279,337and 304(A) IPC. It appears to me that the above findings are according to the evidence. 6. The scene mahazar was attested by PW6. Ext.P1 statement of PW1 was recorded by PW8. On that basis, he registered a crime and Ext.P9 is the FIR. PW9 conducted investigation in this case. He prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He also verified Ext.P8 mahazar and arrested the accused. But the Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that both the vehicles [KL7-AD/3577 and TL1379] were inspected at the premises of the Kasaba Police station and issued Ext.P12 certificate. No mechanical defect to the vehicle was noticed by him. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the rear wheel was detached and due to that mechanical defect, the car went out of control and Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 6 subsequently, it hit on the lorry therefore no negligence is there on the side of the revision petitioner. Even though, such a suggestion was made, no proper questions were asked to the occurrence witnesses. 7. The motor vehicle is intended to be driven at a minimum speed with due care and caution in order to avoid accident or hitting against another vehicle passing through the road. Such precaution was not made by the revision petitioner and both courts appreciated the evidence and opined that the revision petitioner was rash and negligent at the time of accident. Prosecution evidence is sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the revision petitioner. Therefore, the offence under Secs.279, 337 and 304(A) IPC is confirmed. 8. There is no violation of the provisions with regard to appreciation of evidence and no proof of any miscarriage of justice. The facts are decided totally on the basis of evidence and no ground to interfere in such circumstance. Therefore, no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality or Crl. R.P. No.1035 of 2005 7 irregularity. The Apex Court in **Chandranmohan Nair v. State of Kerala [1994 SCC Crl.1750]** held that sentence of three months period is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The facts and circumstances in this case show that the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. There is no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. NS/10/06/2016 Sd/- **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE** / True Copy / P.A. To Judge