ORDER : The revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.388/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By judgment dated 12.03.2008, the learned Judicial First Class magistrate, Payyoli convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 3 No.311/2008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. By judgment dated 22.09.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, (Adhoc-1), Kozhikode, to whom the case was made ever for hearing, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused is before this Court in revision. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as hereunder:- On 18.03.2006 at 8 a.m, PW4 as pillion rider and his father, Narayanan Nair as rider were travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 11 T 8700 from Kozhikode to Vadakara and when the motorcycle reached at Kalarippadi, the accused drove a tanker lorry bearing registration No. KL 3 E 450 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life collided with the motorcycle and as a result of the collision, both PW4 and his father Narayanan Nair sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the collision, both PW4 and his father were shifted to the Baby Memorial Hospital at Kozhikode. While undergoing treatment, PW4's father Narayana Nair succumbed to the injuries sustained to him. 4. For the occurrence in question, PW4 lodged Ext.P3-FIS before PW10, the Head Constable of Payyoli Police Station. On the strength of Ext.P3-FIS, PW10 registered initially Ext.P11-FIR for the offences Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 4 punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC as Crime No.98/2006 of the Payyoli Police Station. 5. During the investigation, PW4's father died. 4. For the occurrence in question, PW4 lodged Ext.P3-FIS before PW10, the Head Constable of Payyoli Police Station. On the strength of Ext.P3-FIS, PW10 registered initially Ext.P11-FIR for the offences Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 4 punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC as Crime No.98/2006 of the Payyoli Police Station. 5. During the investigation, PW4's father died. Hence, the Investigating Officer filed report before the court to incorporate Section 304(A) of IPC as well. PW13, the Sub Inspector of Payyoli Police Station recorded the statement of the witnesses, completed the investigation and filed final report before the court. 6. During the trial, PWs 1 to 13 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P13 on the side of the prosecution. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. His defence is one of total denial. DW1 was examined on his side. 7. PW8, Doctor Sivakumar examined the deceased on 18.03.2006 at 9 a.m while he was working as Chief Medical Officer at the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode and issued Ext.P8 wound certificate noting the following injuries:- 1. Crash injury right lower limb 2. fracture right femur 3. fracture both bones right leg 4. Circulatory shock He also stated that while undergoing treatment, the patient expired on 15.04.2006. On the next day at 1 p.m, PW8 examined PW4 and issued Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 5 Ext.P9 wound certificate noting the following injuries:- 1. Fracture right tibia 2. soft tissue injury right leg and right knee 8. History and alleged cause of history stated in Exts.P8 and P9 wound certificates are stated as hit by a lorry while travelling on a motorcycle at Kalarippadi near Payyoli on 18.03.2006 at about 9 a.m. PW4 underwent treatment as an in-patient from 19.03.2006 and he was discharged on 31.03.2006. It is stated in Ext.P9 wound certificate that the nature of injuries sustained to PW4 were grievous in nature. 9. Ext.P8-wound certificate would reveal that deceasedNarayanan Nair was admitted as an in-patient on 18.03.2006 and expired on 15.04.2006 while undergoing treatment at the hospital. 10. To prove the occurrence in question, the prosecution mainly relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 . PW4 testified that on 18.03.2006 morning, he along with his father were proceeding to Vadakara through the National Highway in a motorcycle ridden by his father. 10. To prove the occurrence in question, the prosecution mainly relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 . PW4 testified that on 18.03.2006 morning, he along with his father were proceeding to Vadakara through the National Highway in a motorcycle ridden by his father. According to him, when the motorcycle reached at Kalarippadi, a tanker lorry coming from the opposite direction hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which PW4 and his father had fallen on the road and sustained grievous injuries. PW9, the Doctor who treated the injured and the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 6 deceased at the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode stated that both the deceased and PW4 sustained grievous injuries. On going through Exts.P8 and P9 wound certificates, it is clear that injuries sustained to the deceased and PW4 were grievous in nature. 11. PW1 is an independent witness. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was waiting for a bus at Kalarippadi bus stop. He supported the version of PW4 that while so, a tanker lorry coming from the northern side hit on the motorcycle ridden by the deceased from south to north direction and thereby the deceased and PW4 fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. PW2, yet another independent witness residing close to the place of occurrence supported the version of PW4. PWs 1, 2 and 4 identified the accused before the court. 12. PW5 is an attestor to Ext.P4 scene mahazar. Ext.P4 scene mahazar would show that the road lies on the north south direction and the total width of the road at the scene of occurrence is 9 meters east of western tar end. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that PW4 and the deceased were travelling from south to north direction. Therefore, it is logical to infer that their proper side would have been on the western half of the road. As tanker lorry came from north to south direction, the proper side of the tanker lorry would have been on the eastern half of the road. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 7 Ext.P4 clearly indicates that the place of occurrence is ½ meter east of the western tar end. This is a clear indication to show that at the time of occurrence, the tanker lorry was maintaining on the right side whereas the motorcycle was keeping in its proper side. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 7 Ext.P4 clearly indicates that the place of occurrence is ½ meter east of the western tar end. This is a clear indication to show that at the time of occurrence, the tanker lorry was maintaining on the right side whereas the motorcycle was keeping in its proper side. On going through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, it is brought out that the accused drove the tanker lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as a result of which the deceased and PW4 sustained injuries. 13. The next question arises for consideration is as to whether the accused caused the death of the deceased by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide as defined under Section 304(A) of IPC. In this connection, Ext.P8-wound certificate issued by PW9 is material. Ext.P8-wound certificate inter alia would show that the accused sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he was admitted as an in-patient at the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode on 18.03.2006. Ext.P8-wound certificate would further indicate that the deceased expired on 15.04.2006 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. There is nothing to indicate in Ext.P8 that the injured expired as a result of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Immediately after the death of the deceased, PW9 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P7 inquest report. The body was sent for postmortem examination. PW12 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 8 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P12 postmortem certificate. According to PW12, the deceased died of acute pyogenic meningitis following septicemia due to infection of the injuries sustained to right lower limp. Ext.P12-postmortem certificate is not sufficient to indicate that the deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle. It is true that, PW4 and the deceased sustained injuries. Death due to acute pyogenic meningitis following septicemia due to infection of the injuries sustained is not a natural and direct consequence of the proximate cause of the injuries sustained to the deceased. Ext.P8-wound certificate would show that the injured expired on 15.04.2006, whereas the accident took place on 18.03.2006. It is true that, PW4 and the deceased sustained injuries. Death due to acute pyogenic meningitis following septicemia due to infection of the injuries sustained is not a natural and direct consequence of the proximate cause of the injuries sustained to the deceased. Ext.P8-wound certificate would show that the injured expired on 15.04.2006, whereas the accident took place on 18.03.2006. Unless and until positive evidence is adduced to prove that the deceased expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC is per se unsustainable. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove that the accused drove the tanker lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and as a result of which both PW4 and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Hence, conviction Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3989 OF 2009 9 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC are maintained as such without any change whatsoever. Having taken into consideration of the facts and circumstances involved, the sentence is liable to be modified. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304(A) of IPC are set aside. The accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and he is acquitted thereunder. For the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months more. For the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months more. In view of the Covid-19 pandemic out break in Kerala, the revision petitioner/accused is given three months' time to deposit the fine amount before the trial court and in case of failure, the trial court shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence imposed in accordance with law.