IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1969 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- CRA.158/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.262/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- ANOOP, SON OF KRISHNAN, VAYALIL HOUSE, MOORIYAD, KOOTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== Crl.R.P.No.1969 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo different counts of imprisonment and to pay fine for offences alleged to have been committed by him and punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. The allegation against him is that he was the driver of a taxi car with five passengers and he drove that vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that at about 11 p.m. that vehicle capsized resulting in the death of one person and injury to other passengers. 2. Going by the materials on record, including the evidence of P.W.11, the investigating officer, the scene mahazar, P.Ws.1 to 4 and the surviving passengers in the vehicle in question, CRRP1969/04 -:2:- the vehicle was proceeding from north to south on its way from Koothuparamba to Guruvayur. The vehicle departed Koothuparamba at 9.30 p.m. and the occurrence was recorded to be at 11 p.m. P.W.11 says that the distance between Koothuparamba and the scene of occurrence is 40 kilometres. P.Ws.1 to 4, who were passengers in the car did not refute the defence version that, while the accused was overtaking another vehicle going ahead, yet another vehicle, a jeep, suddenly came out from the western side of the road from an uninhabited house, which was under construction and on seeing that vehicle, the accused severed the vehicle driven by him to avert a major accident and this resulted in the vehicle capsizing leading to the death of one passenger and injuries to other passengers. The courts below, on appreciating the evidence, relied on the testimony of a couple of passengers in the vehicle that the accused drove the vehicle at a high speed. The distance travelled is about 40 CRRP1969/04 -:3:- kms. and the time taken for the journey during the night hours is one and a half hour. At the scene of occurrence, for about 150 metres, there was clear visibility. The vehicle driven by the accused had not collided with any other vehicle. Even if the vehicle has to be treated as running at a fairly good speed, that too, to cover 40 kms. in one and a half hour, there is no element of rash and negligence that could be attributed on the basis of evidence on record. As noticed by the courts below, driving at high speed by itself is no rashness or negligence. The speed at which the vehicle would have been travelling can be easily taken stock of, as already noticed. The availability of an uninhabited house on the side of the road is noticed in the scene mahazar. Though that house is a little ahead from the scene of occurrence as noticed by the courts below, that by itself does not tilt the case against the accused because, admittedly, the visibility range was about CRRP1969/04 -:4:- 150 metres. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, the evidence on record was wholly insufficient to conclude that the accused had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner to attract culpability under the provisions charged. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are set aside and the revision petition is allowed acquitting the accused revision petitioner. The bail bond will stand cancelled and the accused is set at liberty. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.21.7