Road Accident Death Unfortunate, Will Be Equally Unfortunate If Innocent Auto Driver Who Tried To Help Is Made Accused: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that when a person who attempts to help a road accident victim lying unattended for several hours is falsely implicated as an accused, they would think twice before extending a helping hand.

Justice Sophy Thomas made the observation in a case wherein an auto rickshaw driver who attempted to help a road accident victim by taking him to the hospital was implicated as an accused. 

"True, it was unfortunate that a young man lost his life in a road traffic accident by falling down from his bike. It will be equally unfortunate, if an innocent person, who tried to help the injured by taking him to hospital in his autorickshaw, was made an accused in a criminal case," the Court observed. 

The deceased, one Alexander Kurian, had been riding his motorcycle when an auto rickshaw dashed against his vehicle due to which he sustained fatal injuries. It was averred by the appellants that due to the death of Kurian, they had lost their breadwinner, and thus approached the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs. 15 Lakhs.

The 1st respondent auto driver disputed the accident and argued that his autorickshaw never dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and that the injured Kurian had in fact been taken to the hospital in his auto, while he was lying on the road. The 2nd respondent which is the insurer of the 1st respondent's auto rikshaw also averred that the motorcycle ridden by the deceased had lost its control and skidded in the road whereby the deceased fell down and sustained head injury, and that the deceased also did not have any valid driving license to ride his motorcycle.

The Tribunal found that the autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent never hit the motorcycle, and that the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased skidded on the road. It thereby declined the relief sought by the appellants. 

The Court observed that the final report in the matter was filed against the 1st respondent under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. On the complaints of the 1st respondent against the Final report, a further investigation was ordered pursuant to which the DySP investigated the case. The DySP submitted that when he questioned the witnesses, they did not support the statements given in the final report. He added that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report also indicated that there was no collision between the two vehicles. 

The Court observed that if the witnesses stated to the Investigating Officer that they had not seen any collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, and the FSL report also substantiated the same, the latter was not justified in laying the chargesheet against the 1st respondent. 

"Since the 1st respondent only took the injured to hospital in his autorickshaw as a good samaritan, he might have been that much aggrieved, when he was made an accused in a criminal case, for the good thing done by him to an injured person," the Court stated. 

Addressing the arguments raised by the appellants against the legality of further investigation conducted by the DySP, the Court noted that the same might have been done after complying with all the legal formalities, and that the presumption available under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act also substantiates the same. The Court also took note that the appellants had not raised any challenge before any authorities against the further investigation or against the final report. 

The Court was of the view that the testimony of the witnesses, the FSL Report and the Final Report justified the Tribunal's finding that the accident was not due to any collision between the motorcycle and the autorickshaw, and that in all probability the deceased, who was in a drunken state while riding the vehicle, must have fallen from the bike due to skidding. It added that the 1st respondent might have then taken the deceased to the hospital in his auto. 

"But the Police made him an accused. If that is true, a prudent man will think twice before taking an injured person to hospital. Innocent victims of road traffic accidents had lost their lives lying unattended for hours together with bleeding injuries, as nobody may extend a helping hand due to fear of false accusation," the Court observed. 

The Court also did not find any irregularity in accepting the FSL Report without examining the person who issued the same, thus dismissing the arguments of the appellant in that regard. 

"The First Information Statement, as we have seen, was laid by the brother-in-law of the deceased after 10 hours of the accident. By that time, he might have collected all the information regarding the incident. If the incident arose out of a collision between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, definitely, he might have stated that fact in the FI statement itself. If such a collision occurred, there was no reason for PWs 1 and 3 to say that they did not see any such collision. The road at the place of incident was damaged due to pipeline work as deposed by PWs 1 and 3. Moreover, Ext.B3 wound certificate, indicates that the deceased had consumed alcohol. Ext.B1, the FSL report, shows that, there was no collision between the motorcycle and the autorickshaw in question. When all these facts are read together, the irresistible conclusion is that, no collision occurred between the autorickshaw and the motorcycle, and so the 1st respondent was not responsible for the accident. If the motorcycle ridden by the deceased skidded and he sustained injuries, the 1st respondent who took him to the hospital, or the insurer of his autorickshaw could not be held liable," the Court observed while dismissing the appeal. 

The appellants were represented by Advocates Mathew John (K) and Domson J. Vattakuzhy. Senior Advocate George Cherian and Advocates Latha Susan Cherian and K.S. Santhi appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Marykutty Kurian & Anr. v. Babu Joseph & Anr. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 338 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment