IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1969 of 2004()
1. ANOOP, SON OF KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :18/07/2008
O R D E R
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