IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2268 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.220/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.156/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 39 KUNCHATTU HOUSE, VENGUR WEST VILLAGE MUDAKKUZHY KARA, PERUMPAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2268 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.220 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution on 18.2.2002 petitioner drove K.S.R.T.C. bus (hereinafter referred as 'the offending bus') in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused that bus hit the mini lorry which came from the opposite side resulting in hurt/grievous hurt to some of the travelers in the vehicles. Courts below found that accident occurred due to rashness of petitioner. That finding is under challenge. It is contended that there is no sufficient evidence to show rashness or negligence on the part of petitioner. 2. Though it is seen that the wound certificates of the injured (Exts.P6 to P8) are marked in evidence through PW7, Assistant Sub Inspector who investigated the case the version of the injured witnesses that they suffered hurt/grievous hurt is not challenged in cross examination. It is seen that Exts.P4 and 5, reports prepared by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector after inspection of the vehicles were marked through PW7.. It is true that the marking of those Crl.R.P.No.2268/2009 2 documents through PW7 was not objected but certainly prosecution ought to have examined the officer who prepared Exts.P4 and P5 and proved that the accident was not due to mechanical defect of either of the vehicles. 3. PWs 1 to 6 gave evidence regarding the accident. PW1 claimed that his brother was driving the mini lorry at the relevant time. But, evidence of PW7 would show that PW1 had told him in the course of investigation that PW1 was driving the mini lorry. PW1 stated that the offending bus which came from the opposite side hit the mini lorry. According to him the bus was at over speed. In cross examination he stated that he does not know the speed of the lorry. PW2 was the conductor of the offending bus. He gave first information (Ext.P1) wherein the driver of the offending bus is stated to be the petitioner. PW2 did not support the prosecution regarding cause of accident and stated that he was engaged in issuing tickets and hence he had not seen the accident. PWs 3 and 6 are passengers in the offending bus. They also referred to the accident but did not say anything about the rashness or negligence or any circumstance from which rashness or negligence could be inferred. PW3 stated that the 'vehicle' was at high speed but it is not clear which vehicle was meant by that expression. PW6 stated that he does not know the cause of accident. According to him, the vehicle was at normal speed. PW4 saw the mini lorry lying in the ravine. PW5 is a traveler in the mini lorry and did not speak against the petitioner. He stated that the offending bus was coming along wrong side. Crl.R.P.No.2268/2009 3 4. Ext.P3 is the mahazar for scene of occurrence prepared by PW7. I have gone through Ext.P3 and find that accident occurred at a sharp curve. Ext.P3 does not specifically state which is the accident spot. From Ext.P3 it is not discernible whether the accident occurred on the wrong side of the bus. Hence merely because PW5 stated that the offending bus came along wrong side it is not possible to hold that the accident occurred on the wrong side of the bus. None of the witnesses have spoken to the direction in which the vehicles came. As such, no conclusion is possible that accident occurred on the wrong side of the bus. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that rashness or negligence on the part of petitioner resulted in the accident. As such conviction and sentence of petitioner cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds. Conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges against him. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks