IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 857 of 2000 ----------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 455 OF 1994 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION CRL. APPEAL.NO.327/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.884/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE) REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- MANOHARAN, S/O. GOPALAN, PALATH AMSOM DESOM, IRUVALLOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY CYRIAC ADV. SRI.K.N.SASEENDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. , CITY TRAFFIC P.S. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No. 857 of 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R -------------- Courts below concurrently found that revision petitioner drove the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused that bus hit a tempo van that was coming from the opposite side, resulting in injuries to P.Ws.1 to 3, passengers in the bus and P.W.9, driver of the tempo van. Revision petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 279 and 2 months for the offence under Section 337. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence as well. Hence this revision. 2. Heard. 3. It is contended by counsel for revision petitioner that there is no evidence to show that revision petitioner drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 4. Accident occurred on 16.3.1994 at about 12.45 p.m. near Eranchipalam Post Office on Kozhikode – Vayanad road. Bus driven by the revision petitioner and tempo van driven by P.W.9 came from CRL. R.P. No.857 of 2000 -: 2 :- opposite side. According to prosecution bus driven by the revision petitioner hit the tempo van. 5. That, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.9 suffered injuries is proved by their evidence and Exhibits P2 to P5. That the cause of accident was not due to mechanical defect of either of the vehicles is proved by the evidence of P.W.8 and Exhibits P7 and P8. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 have identified the revision petitioner as the driver of the offending bus. Exhibit P10, trip sheet also revealed that revision petitioner was driving the offending bus. P.W.12, conductor of the bus stated that revision petitioner was driving the bus at the relevant time. He produced Exhibit P10. What then remained for consideration is only whether the allegation of rashness and negligence of the revision petitioner in driving the offending bus is proved. 6. P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 9 gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. P.W.5 did not support the prosecution. P.W.9, driver of the tempo van though stated that the bus came from the opposite side, pleaded ignorance as to the cause of accident. What remained is only the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. They stated that there was collision between the two vehicles. They also stated that the bus was going at a good speed. But according to P.W.1, she saw the tempo CRL. R.P. No.857 of 2000 -: 3 :- van only after the hit on hearing the sound of hit. P.W.2 stated that the bus was stopped 10-25 metres before the spot of accident and had taken passengers from the bus stop. Accident occurred while the bus was proceeding thereafter. She could not deny the suggestion that accident occurred when the tempo van abruptly crossed the road. P.W.3 stated that the tempo van came from the opposite side, showed signal to turn to the southern side and then the bus hit the tempo van. In cross-examination P.W.3 stated that tempo van which was coming towards east crossed the road towards southern side and then the accident occurred. Going by the evidence of P.W.3, it would appear that tempo van was going from west to east. Exhibit P9 is the mahazar for scene of accident. Investigating Officer has stated that the accident occurred 75 cms north of southern tar end which would show that the accident occurred on the southern extremity of the tar portion which, going by the evidence of P.W.3 that the tempo van was going from west to east, is the wrong side of the tempo van. Accident spot stated in Exhibit P9 thus corroborates the version of P.W.3 that the tempo van came from west to east and was taken towards southern side. Exhibit P9 does not indicate any tyre mark on the road to show that vehicles came at excessive speed and there was CRL. R.P. No.857 of 2000 -: 4 :- application of brake. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that there was criminal rashness or negligence on the part of the revision petitioner which resulted in the accident. Conviction therefore cannot stand. Sentence also is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence on revision petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond is cancelled. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.4547 of 2000 and 516 of 2001 shall stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO.857 OF 2000 =================== O R D E R 2ND DECEMBER, 2008