IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 324 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.223/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.130/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------ K.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, NADULITHAZHATH HOUSE, CHELANNUR KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LAKSHMI RANI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.1405 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.324 OF 2001 //DISMISSED// 25.08.2008. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.324 OF 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The allegation against him is that on 20.8.1994, he drove a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and at about 11 a.m., hit against a lorry driven by PW2, which came from the opposite direction. 2. The assimilation of the evidence on record would show that the road, a little away from the point of accident, takes a curve and does not lie as a straight one. The lorry belonging to KSEB, driven by PW2, was proceeding towards Kozhikode. The impact between the vehicle driven by PW2 and the vehicle driven by the accused, coming from the opposite direction, was on their respective right sides. Obviously therefore, initially the vehicles were coming on their correct sides, going by the Motor Vehicles Rules. It is the further allegation against the accused that the Crl.R.P.324/01 Page numbers offending vehicle, thereafter, hit the mini lorry driven by PW1, which was following the lorry driven by PW2. There can be only two situations that would result in such an impact. Either the offending vehicle could have been going at such a tremendous speed that it would have further proceeded after the impact with the vehicle driven by PW2 and then hit on the vehicle driven by PW1. Otherwise, the mini lorry driven by PW1 would have attempted to overtake the lorry driven by PW2. The second version is not accepted by the prosecution. Regarding the first version, it is wholly impossible since if such a situation had occurred, this would not have been the nature of the result of any such accident or the report regarding the vehicles, by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. It may be a case where the mini lorry driven by PW1 would have hit against the rear of the KSEB lorry driven by PW2. In any view of the matter, this is an abundantly fit case where the revision petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and an order of acquittal on that count. However, it is seen that the court of session confirmed the conviction and sentence based on an inference that had he not Crl.R.P.324/01 Page numbers been guilty, he would not have fled from the scene of occurrence. With great respect, I am unable to concur with such an inference. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the finding of guilt and the conviction of the revision petitioner, the accused and sentence imposed on him are set aside. The bail bond stands cancelled. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.27/8. Crl.R.P.324/01 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J Crl.R.P.NO.324 OF 2001 O R D E R 25TH AUGUST, 2008. =======================