Madras High Court
Ravi vs The State. Rep. By on 24 October, 2017
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Revision Case No.8 of 2012
Ravi .. Petitioner
Vs
The State. Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruninravur Police Station,
Tiruvallur District.
Crime No.422 of 2003 .. Respondent
This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgement dated 27.09.2011 passed in C.A.No.59 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.201 of 2004 dated 23.06.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur convicting the Appellant for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and acquit the petitioner.
For petitioner : Mr.C.Arunkumar
for Mr.I.Paranthaman
For respondent : Mr.V.Arul
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The sole accused in C.C.No.201 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur is the revision petitioner. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court, after trial, convicted the petitioner for all the charges and for offence under Section 279 IPC, sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, convicted him under section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and convicted him under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.
2. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track court No.III, Tiruvallur. The lower Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 27.09.2011, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence and sentenced him to under go three months simple imprisonment instead of six months for charge under section 279 IPC and for charge under section 337 IPC, sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and for offence under section 304-A of IPC, sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine. Now, challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The deceased in this case, one Dinesh was a school going boy, on 29.11.2003 at about 3.30 p.m., and he was riding his bicycle opposite to Jaya Higher Secondary School on the left side of the road at Tiruvallur High Road at Tiruninravur. P.W.7, who is another school going boy, standing near the left side of the road. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 01 9495, driven by the accused, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle ridden by the deceased and also dashed against the P.W.7, and the lorry ran over the deceased. P.W.7 suffered minor injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 and P.W.2 standing near the scene of occurrence, sent the deceased as well as P.W.7 in an auto to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Porur, thereafter, P.W.1 has filed a complaint before the respondent police. P.W.10/the Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.422 of 2003 for the offences under section 279 and 331 IPC and prepared First Information Report [Ex.P5]. P.W.10 proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P10], rough sketch [Ex.P6]. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and also recovered the bi-cycle and the lorry. Thereafter, on 02.12.2003, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, P.W.12 another Inspector of Police altered the First Information Report and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Tiruvallur for postmortem autopsy. Postmortem Certificate is Ex.P12. P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He examined the lorry and given report that there is no mechanical failure. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
4. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked.
5. Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was standing near a tea stall, at that time, the lorry driven by the accused came in a rash and negligence manner, and dashed against the bicycle driven by the deceased, the lorry ran over the deceased and also dashed against another school going boy, then the driver of the lorry escaped from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, he sent both the injured persons in a auto through auto to Sri Ramachandra Medical Hospital, Porur. Thereafter, he gave a complaint before the respondent police. P.W.2 is another eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was standing near the road and at that time, a lorry driven by the accused, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against two school going boys and the lorry ran over the deceased. P.W.3, one Lakshmipathy, after hearing the noise, went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.4, one Ramesh Durai has heard the noise and went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.5 is another eye witness to the occurrence. According to him, he was standing near the road side. At that time, a lorry driven by the accused came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and the lorry ran over the deceased. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the witness to the observation mahazar. P.W.7 an injured eye witness. According to him, the deceased was riding a bicycle, at that time, a lorry driven by the accused came in high speed and and dashed against the deceased and also dashed against him. He was thrown away and he sustained injuries. PW8 is father of the deceased. According to him, his son was studying Higher Secondary course in Jaya Higher Secondary School. He was informed about the incident, thereafter, he went to the Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, and on 02.12.2003, he succumbed to injuries. P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to him, he examined the offending lorry and gave report that there is no mechanical fault. P.W.10/the then Inspector Police was working in the respondent police station. On receipt of the complaint, registered the case, prepared First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he seized the lorry and bicycle. P.W.11 is the Doctor. He gave treatment to P.W.7 and he issued accident register. P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station altered the First Information Report and examined the witnesses recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet.
6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. The accused did not examine any witness nor marked any document.
7. After elaborate trial, the trial court convicted the accused for offence as stated above. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.59 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur District. The lower appellate court by judgment dated 27.09.2011, partly allowed the appeal thereby modifying the sentence passed by the trial Court as stated above. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
9. P.Ws.1,2,6 and 7 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. All of them are independent witness. All of them were standing near the scene of occurrence that time of occurrence. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased was going in his bicycle and P.W.7, the injured witness was standing opposite to Jaya Higher Secondary School. At that time, the lorry driven by the accused came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and the lorry ran over the leg of the deceased and also dashed against P.W.7, the injured witness. P.W.7 was thrown away from the road and he had sustained injuries. P.W.6 another eye witness to the occurrence also deposed that the lorry ran over the deceased and P.W.7 the injured witness and he has categorically stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, the lorry came in a high speed and dashed against P.W.7 and he was thrown away.
10. It is the consistent evidence of all the eye witnesses that both the deceased and injured witness were standing on the left side of the road, opposite to are Jaya Higher Secondary school. At that time, the lorry driven by the accused came in a negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and P.W.7. P.W.9, Motor Vehicle Inspector, stated that he examined the offending lorry and he has given report that there is no mechanical failure. The medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses. With the above material, the prosecution has proved that it is only this petitioner driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the school going boys. Both the Courts below have considered the entire evidence in detail and convicted the petitioner and I have also gone through the entire materials available on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Courts below and there is no reason to interfere with the findings.
11. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the accused is a poor man and he is the sole bread winner of the family and he has no bad antecedents. Taking into consideration the mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the sentence is modified into of six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo, 8 weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. So far as the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for offence under section 279 and 337 of IPC are confirmed.
12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The conviction imposed on the petitioner in C.A.No.59 of 2010 dated 27.09.2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.III, Tiruvallur District is confirmed. However, the sentence is modified as follows. For the offence under section 304(A) IPC, the petitioner sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo eight weeks simple imprisonment, so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner for offence under section 279 and 337 of IPC are confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the petitioner/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. It is directed that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
24.10.2017 rrg Index:Yes To
1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruninravur Police Station, Tiruvallur District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rrg Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2012 24.10.2017