High Court Kerala High Court

Prabha Kumar @ Manikuttan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
Prabha Kumar @ Manikuttan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 4262 of 2006()


1. PRABHA KUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.DINESH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :19/02/2007

 O R D E R
                             K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

                        ---------------------------------------------

                            CRL.R.P.No.4262 of 2006

                         ---------------------------------------------

             Dated this the  19th day of February, 2007






                                        ORDER

Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced, as modified by the

appellate court, to a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and

15 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under

Section 338 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.2.2001, at 9

P.M., the accused drove an autorickshaw bearing registration

No.KL01 F 6875, without obtaining fitness certificate, insurance

certificate and license, in a rash and negligent manner and the

vehicle capsized and CW’s 1 and 2, the passengers sustained

injuries including fracture on the distal portion of left leg toe of

CW2. It is contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner

that there is no evidence identifying the accused. There is delay

of 30 days in lodging the complaint. AMVI was not examined.

Hence, it is not evident that the accident took place not on

account of mechanical defects of the vehicle.

CRRP4262/2006 Page numbers

3. In view of the evidence in the case, I find that

prosecution has failed to establish that the accused drove the

vehicle when the accident took place. Non existence of any

mechanical defect of the vehicle was not proved. Further the

delay stands not explained. These aspects were not considered

by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. In these

circumstances, I find that the conviction and sentence cannot be

sustained. The same is set aside. The accused stands acquitted.

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed accordingly.






                                                          K.R.UDAYABHANU,

                                                                        JUDGE


csl


CRRP4262/2006                      Page numbers





                                                    K.R.UDAYABHANU, J













                                                           Crl.R.P.No.899 of 2001


                                                           ORDER












                                                               15th February, 2007




CRRP4262/2006    Page numbers














CRRP4262/2006    Page numbers