IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1961 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.70/2002 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.3381/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SASIDHARAN, S/O.KOMBI, KATTAKKADU HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARALI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1961 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 O R D E R This revision by the accused is against the order of conviction and sentence imposed under Section 279 read with Section 338 IPC. 2. The allegation against the accused was that while driving a stage carriage through a public road lying east to west, that vehicle hit against PW1, resulting in injuries which have been noticed by PW9 doctor who issued Exts.P3 to P8 certificates. The courts below have concurrently found that the vehicle was driven in a public way and that the accused was its driver. The lower appellate court, in confirming the findings of the trial court, held that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash manner. This conclusion was arrived at by taking a view that the different witnesses spoke that the vehicle was going at high speed and a cautious driver will not drive the vehicle in an over speed and driving at over speed would amount to a rash act. It Crl.RP.1961/04 Page numbers was accordingly that the court of session upheld the findings of the court of first instance that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 3. Advertence to the materials on record would show involvement of other vehicles also in the incident and it could only be a sequence of impacts resulting in the injuries as alleged. The evidence of PW6 would show that the bus hit against a car driven by him. PW7 also says so as he was a passenger in the car driven by PW6. The reports of the Vehicle Inspector in relation to the vehicles involved and the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused, when contrasted, would disclose the artificial nature of the allegations. If the high speed and the manner of the accident as alleged had occurred, it would have invited a totally different scenario, having regard to the attributes made against the petitioner regarding the over speed and the different vehicles, viz., a TATA Sumo and another car which were also involved in the accident. On facts, the totality of the circumstances and the materials on record lead to the only Crl.RP.1961/04 Page numbers conclusion that the accused could not have been held guilty and the incident was only an accident not arising out of any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is set at liberty, cancelling the bail bond. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.22/7.