Madras High Court
Suthakar vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 September, 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARM Crl.R.C.(md).No.360 of 2014 SUTHAKAR . . . Petitioner/Accused Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUTHIAHPURAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI CR.NO.204/2009 . . . Respondent/Complainant Prayer Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi on 01.07.2014 in C.A.No.25 of 2014, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thoothukudi in C.C.No.26 of 2011 on 03.04.2014. !For petitioner:Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim for Mr.Antony S.Prabhakar ^For respondent:Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) :ORDER
The sole accused, who was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi in C.C.No.26 of 2011 has preferred the present revision against the judgment of the lower appellate Judge namely the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 01.07.2014 made in C.A.No.25 of 2014 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court regarding conviction as well as sentence.
2.Pursuant to a road accident that took place on 19.04.2009 at 4.15 p.m on the Thoothukudi-Tiruchendur main road, near Easakki Amman Temple within the territorial jurisdiction of Muthiahpuram Police Station, involving a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-69-B-3013 and a mini-goods van bearing Regn.No.TN-69-B-7797, resulting in the death of one Ranjith Kumar, rider of the said motor cycle and Madhan, pillion rider of the said motor cycle, a case was registered on the file of the above said Police Station in Cr.No.204 of 2009 for an offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3.According to the prosecution version, when the deceased were proceeding in the above said motor cycle from south to north on the above said road, the mini goods van, of which the revision petitioner/accused was the driver, came in the opposite direction driven by him in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motor cycle, resulting in the injuries leading to the death of the rider and pillion rider of the motor- cycle. After the case was investigated by P.W.15-the Inspector of Police, final report was submitted alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (2 counts). The same was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi as C.C.No.26 of 2011.
4.On appearance, the revision petitioner/accused denied having committed any offence. Necessary charge was framed and the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried. Accordingly, a trial was conducted, in which as many as 15 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, besides producing 11 documents. No defence witness was examined and no document was produced on the side of the accused.
5.The learned trial Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi), after considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, rendered a finding that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the revision petitioner in driving the mini- goods van bearing Regn.No.TN-69-B-7797. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi held the charges against the accused to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him for the said offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for each count. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6.As against the said judgment of the trial court, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.25 of 2014 both regarding conviction and sentence. The said appeal came to be made over to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi heard the appeal and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial court in all respects. The said judgment of the learned appellate Judge, dated 01.07.2014 made in C.A.No.25 of 2014 on the file of the Lower Appellate Court, is challenged in this revision by the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner has questioned the correctness, legality and sustainability of the said judgment of the learned appellate Judge.
7.The revision stands listed today for admission. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. The copies of the judgments of the courts below and the records produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.
8.Upon such perusal and after paying its anxious consideration to the same, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the revision, that the revision does not even merit admission and that the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
9.The reasons are as follows:
i)It is not in dispute that there occurred an accident involving the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-69-B-3013, in which the deceased were proceeding as rider and pillion rider and the mini-goods van bearing Regn.No.TN-69-B-7797, driven by the revision petitioner. It is also not in dispute that both the vehicles were proceeding in the opposite directions and it was a head on collision resulting in the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle being thrown out of the motor-cycle and sustaining grievous injuries on vital parts, which later on proved to be fatal, even though they were taken to the hospital for treatment.
ii)The post mortem examination reports marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5 make it clear that the rider and pillion rider of the motor-cycle, namely Ranjith Kumar and Madhan, died of the injuries which they sustained in the accident.
Exs.P.6 and P.7 are the reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, prepared on his inspection of the mini-goods van and the motor cycle involved in the accident. The nature of damage caused to both the vehicles were clearly adverted to by both the courts below to arrive at a conclusion that the mini- goods van had gone to the wrong side and hit the motor-cycle on its right side. The observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer, which have been marked as Exs.P.2 and P.9 also give the indication that it was the revision petitioner/accused who went to the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle causing injuries leading to the death of the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle.
iii)The reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector also evidence that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicles; that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect found in either of the vehicles and that the accident was due to human error, namely rash and negligent driving of the mini-goods van by the revision petitioner. The said documentary evidence is supported by the eye witnesses. P.W.1-Mac Millan Delstar and P.W.6-Johnson have been examined as eye witnesses, who saw the occurrence. In one voice, they have described how the accident took place. The meticulous cross- examination did not bring out any answer capable of weakening or destroying of the prosecution version or showing the innocence of the accused. The said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 cannot be rejected as unreliable or unbelievable.
iv)The trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence and the appellate Court on proper re-appreciation of evidence, rendered a correct and concurrent finding that the revision petitioner/accused acted with rashness and negligence in driving the mini-goods vehicle and hitting the motor cycle, in which the deceased were proceeding. The revision petitioner/accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the offence of causing death by his negligent act punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. As his act has resulted in death of two persons, he was rightly charged with having committed the offence of 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (2 counts) and convicted accordingly.
10.This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence with which he stood charged and convicting him for the said offence. Regarding the sentence also, no case has been made out in the revision to interfere with the same. As this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is excessive and harsher, that too when the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner on each count were ordered to run concurrently. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
11.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. 16.09.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No P.R.SHIVAKUMARM, J.
vs To:
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.
2.The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.R.C.(md).No.360 of 2014
16.09.2014