Madras High Court
Raja Ram vs State By Station House Officer on 3 June, 2015
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03-06-2015 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Crl.R.C. No. 1435 of 2008 Raja Ram .. Petitioner Versus State by Station House Officer Ulundurpet Police Station (Crime No.417/2003) .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in C.A.No.19 of 2008, dated 30.09.2008, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet, in S.T.C.No.402 of 2004, dated 26.02.2008. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ranganathan For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER
The petitioner stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section 3 r/w. 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and tried before the learned I Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulundurpet. Ultimately, after trial in S.T.C.No.402 of 2004, the petitioner was convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and he was also convicted under Section 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, by the learned I Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulundurpet, by judgment dated 26.02.2008. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Questioning the correctness of the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner has preferred C.A.No.19 of 2008 before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, by judgment dated 30.09.2008 has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
2. The case of the prosecution, as could be unfolded from the materials on record is that, on 10.08.2003 at about 5.15 p.m., near A.Kumaramangalam Iyyanar Temple, when one Balasubramanian, Shanmugham, Lalitha along with a seven years old child Ramya were walking on the left hand side of the National High Road from East to West, on the back of them from East to West the accused is alleged to have driven the Tamil Nadu State Transport Bus bearing Regn.No.TN 32 N 1367 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the child Ramya, due to which, Ramya was thrown out on the road and sustained simple injuries. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.417 of 2003 under Section 279 and 337 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 3 r/w. 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. On the side of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 9 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked and on the side of the defence, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. After trial, the Trial Court has ultimately convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment as stated supra, which came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. Mr.G.Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that none of the alleged eye witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 to 3 have stated that they saw the accused driving the vehicle or they saw the vehicle number or they saw the accident, in fact, their evidence is to the effect that a vehicle came from behind and hit the child and hence, they could not have seen the accident at all and therefore, when the accused is not identified to have committed the offence, both Courts below came to the wrong conclusion. He would further add that the Investigation Officer has not even produced the Trip Sheet to show that he was the driver, who was driving the vehicle which is involved in the accident and therefore, both Courts below has erroneously granted conviction.
4. Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the complainant as well as other persons were shocked on seeing the accident and therefore, they have not noted down the vehicle number and they have given the complaint by mentioning the vehicle number only on coming to know the vehicle number from others, therefore, that should not be taken against them. He would further add that in any event, based on the materials available on record, the Courts below were justified in imposing the conviction and sentence on the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
5. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that during his cross-examination, he has categorically averred as follows:-
'' ///v';fSf;F gpd;dhy; te;j g!; jhd; nkhjpaJ/ nkhjpa gpwF jhd; g!;i! ghh;j;njd;/ rk;gtk; ele;jt[ld; g!; epw;fhky; brd;W tpl;lJ/ mjd;gpwF ehd; me;j ngUe;ijnah. oiutiunah ghh;f;ftpy;iy/ jpUf;nfhtpY}h; bry;Yk; 305 g!; vd;W brhy;ypf; bfhz;lhh;fs;/ g[fhh; bfhLf;Fk; nghJ g!; ek;giu ehd; vGjpf; bfhLj;njd;/ v';fs; Ch; kf;fs; rhkp Fk;gpl;Lf; bfhz;oUf;Fk; nghJ ToapUe;jhh;fs;/ v';fs; Ch; kf;fs; jhd; vd;dplk; g!; ek;giu vd;dplk; bfhLj;jhh;fs;////''
6. One Shanmugam, who is the father of Ramya was examined as P.W.2, during his cross-examination, he has categorically averred as follows:-
'' ///v';fSf;F gpd;dhy; te;j g!; vJ vd;W ftdpf;ftpy;iy/ mJ nkhjptpl;L ntfkhf brd;W tpl;lJ/ nkhjptpl;L brd;w gpwF jpUf;nfhtpY}h; g!; vd;W ghh;j;njd;/ ek;gu; Xl;Ldiu ghh;f;ftpy;iy/ /// g!; ek;giu ehd; ftdpf;ftpy;iy/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpf;Fk;nghJ ehd; g!; ek;giu brhy;ytpy;iy vd; jk;gp jhd; brhd;dhh;////''
7. One Lalitha, who is the mother of Ramya was examined as P.W.3 and during her cross-examination, she has categorically averred as follows:-
'' ///v';fSf;F gpd;dhy; te;j g!; nkhjpaJ/ ek;giu ftdpf;ftpy;iy//// tprhhpf;Fk; nghJ tz;o ek;giu brhy;ytpy;iy////
8. The Investigation Officer was examined as P.W.8. During the cross-examination, the Investigation Officer has categorically stated that he has not even registered the complaint given in writing, which is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, the non-production of Trip Sheet by the Investigation Officer to show that the petitioner was the driver, who was driving the vehicle which is involved in the accident is also fatal to the prosecution case. Unfortunately, on a perusal of the above evidences, it is seen that none of the alleged eye witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 to 3 have stated that they saw the accused driving the vehicle or they saw the vehicle number or they saw the accident, in fact, their evidence is to the effect that a vehicle came from behind and hit the child and therefore, it can be easily inferred they could not have seen the accident at all and therefore, when the accused is not identified to have committed the offence, no case is made out as against the accused and therefore, the Appellate Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, I hold that benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no specific overt act attributable against him and consequently the conviction B.RAJENDRAN,J paa and sentence imposed by the Appellate Court on the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Appellate Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
03-06-2015 paa Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To
1.The Station House Officer Ulundurpet Police Station.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
3.The I Additional District Munsif
-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet, Crl.R.C. No.1435 of 2008