Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRABHA KUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRABHA KUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 4262 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 3618 (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


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.