Revision petitioner challenges the concurrent finding of guilt by two courts below that he is guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C.
2. Prosecution case in short is that the revision petitioner drove a motor car bearing registration No.KCF-8016 through a public road on 20-10-1996 in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life at about 1.00 p.m. Due to his rash driving, the vehicle knocked down a lady. Right front and back side wheels of the car ran over her body and she succumbed to the injuries resulted from the accident. Learned Magistrate examined 13 witnesses and marked 6 documents on the side of the prosecution. There was no defence evidence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C cannot be justified in view of the evidence adduced in this case. Mainly, three points are raised for contending that the judgments passed by the lower appellate court and that of the trial court are illegal and improper. It is contended that the prosecution evidence do not establish the identity of the driver of the vehicle. In answer to this argument, learned Public Prosecutor relied on the testimonies of PW's 2, 3 and 4. PW2 is the husband of the deceased. PW3 is the friend of PW2. PW4 is the child of the deceased. All of them were proceeding to take lunch after attending a marriage function through a small alley in front of a church. It is the allegation raised by these witnesses that the car driven by the revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident. All these witnesses spoke about the identity of the accused. The courts below rightly relied on the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he has explicitly stated the fact that he drove the vehicle. According to him, brake system of the vehicle failed and he could not stop the car in spite of best effort. It is also stated by the accused at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that due to his diligence and timely action, a major accident could be averted. Therefore, the question of identity does not arise in this case. That apart, Ext.P6, a report of inspection of the motor vehicle would show that there was no failure to the brake system. Therefore, that contention of the revision petitioner also cannot be accepted.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the testimonies of PW's 2 to 4 are highly interested because two of them were the close relatives of the deceased and one witness was the friend of PW2. Merely for the reason that they are interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. I find no justification for finding that they falsely implicated the accused in the crime. On an over all assessment of the evidence, I find that the courts below properly appreciated the evidence. There is no illegality in convicting the revision petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused was 60 years old at the time of accident in the year 1996. He is now 78 years old. It is also stated by him in court at the time of his examination that for the past 36 years of his experience as driver, he caused no accident. Considering all these facts, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for avoiding imprisonment in this matter. This Court in Kuriakose v. State (1993(2) K.L.T 292) has held that in road accident cases, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate sentence should be given, so as to prevent the menace of reckless driving. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I find the sentence can be suitably modified.
In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. Convictions of the revision petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C are confirmed. The sentence is reduced. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for an offence under Section 304A I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for another 15 days. He shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 279 I.P.C with a default sentence for a further period of 15 days. Both these sentences shall run concurrently. Petitioner is entitled to get set off, if any. The court below shall execute the sentence.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk