IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1283 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.109/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.581/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON, S/O. P.C.ANTONY, THALAYAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.5335/2003 IN CRRP.NO.1283/2003 DISMISSED 23/03/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1283 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd March, 2009 ORDER The revision is filed by the accused against the concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. The accused, a bus driver, was prosecuted for the offences punishable under the above Sections of the I.P.C. on a charge laid by the S.I. of Police, Tirurangadi. He pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate, after trial, finding him guilty of the offences convicted him thereunder sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Sections 279 and 338 and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 337 I.P.C., directing that the sentence shall run concurrently. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 338 I.P.C. was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, but the rest of the conviction under Sections 279 and 337 were confirmed. Against the conviction and sentence as upheld by the appellate court, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, he has preferred this revision. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused, driver of a bus, namely, 'Safe', bearing registration No.KRQ/8840 drove that Crl.R.P.No.1283/03 - 2 - vehicle most unsafely with such rashness and negligence endangering human life through Talappara-Kottakkal N.H. unmindful of the consequences of his acts. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused at about 2 P.M. on 16.1.1995 at a place near Talappara, the bus driven by the accused dashed on the rear side of autorickshaw bearing No.KL-10-8/9383, and then proceeded further and dashed against another bus coming from the opposite direction bearing no.KL-8-A/943, and then moved away from the road and dashed against a house situated nearly 15 meters away from the road causing collapse of a major portion of that building. In the occurrence, passengers in the vehicle driven by the accused, the driver of the autorickshaw and also some of the passengers in the bus coming from the opposite direction and the inmates of the house over which the bus ran into, sustained injuries, some of them grievous. After investigation of the crime registered over the occurrence, the accused was indicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offences. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exts.P1 to P13 to bring home his guilt. The accused when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.1283/03 - 3 - reiterated his plea of innocence. The learned Magistrate, after having anxious consideration of the materials produced, found the accused guilty of the offences imputed. He was, thereupon, convicted and sentenced as indicated earlier. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal noticing that the wound certificates produced by the prosecution to prove the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured in the occurrence have not been proved as required by law concluded there was no convincing evidence to hold that any of the injured had suffered grievous hurt in the accident. The rest of the prosecution charge falling under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. was found fully established by the materials produced. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C., and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 338 I.P.C. Impeaching the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C., the accused has preferred this revision. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that the Crl.R.P.No.1283/03 - 4 - materials involved in the case disclosed that at the most the occurrence arose by an error of judgment on the part of the accused, driver of one of the vehicles involved in the accident, and there was no rash and negligence on his part to conclude that he was solely responsible for the collision of the vehicles involving three vehicles. Perusing the records of the case, I find the submissions made by the learned counsel to absolve the accused from the indictment which was found established by two courts below by the materials tendered in the case, cannot be appreciated. The passengers travelling in his vehicle, the autorickshaw driver and also the passengers in the other vehicles involved in the accident, all of them, had stated that the accused was solely culpable for the occurrence and his rash driving of the vehicle at a high speed without caring for the safety of the passengers and also those moving along with the road resulted in the occurrence. This was a case where the principle 'res ipsa loquitur' applies indicating that the accused had driven his vehicle “Safe” bus in a most unsafe manner endangering the public at large. After hitting against the autorickshaw, the evidence would show, the bus driven by the accused hit another bus coming from the opposite direction and then proceeded and hit against a house situated nearly 15 Crl.R.P.No.1283/03 - 5 - meters away from the road. The above circumstance would indicate that he had driven the vehicle at enormous speed and despite the vehicle hitting against the autorickshaw, he was unable to control that vehicle. P.W.17, the A.M.V.I. who inspected the vehicle driven by the accused, after the occurrence, has given evidence that the vehicle was free from any mechanical defect. Ext.P8 is the report prepared by him on inspection of the vehicle. The proved facts and circumstances established in the case would show that the accused had driven the vehicle at uncontrollable speed and even after hitting against the autorickshaw, he could not control the vehicle from hitting against another bus coming from the opposite direction. The bus went off road and hit against a house situated considerable distance away from the road is another indicator showing the speed at which the vehicle was driven by the accused. The proved circumstances would show despite the rashness and negligence shown by the accused in driving the vehicle, providence had saved him from facing a more serious indictment as the injured had suffered only grievous injuries and none lost life in the occurrence. The laches on the part of the prosecution in proving the wound certificates produced despite the doctors being summoned and examined has also given benefit to Crl.R.P.No.1283/03 - 6 - the accused. Needless to point out, in the given facts of the case, if the wound certificates had been brought in evidence and proved as required by law, the accused could not have escaped from the indictment under Section 338 I.P.C. The accused was rightly found guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and the conviction imposed against him for such offences does not call for any interference. Sentence imposed for the offences with which he was found guilty and convicted also requires no modification. The revision is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE