Madras High Court
Mani vs State By The on 21 September, 2015
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21-09-2015 Coram THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Criminal Revision Case No. 632 of 2009 Mani .. Petitioner Versus State by the Inspector of Police Thiruppur North Police Station Thiruppur District Cr.No.1937 of 2004 .. Respondent Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 20.05.2009 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 401 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Thiruppur, confirming the judgment dated 21.11.2008 passed in C.C. No. 177 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur District, Thiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Baskaran For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER
The petitioner was arrayed as sole accused in C.C. No. 177 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur and after trial, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 304(A) (three counts) and 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks for the offence under Section 279 IPC and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, he has filed Crl. Appeal No. 401 of 2008, which was dismissed on 20.05.2009, thereby, confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2004, at about 6.30 p.m., in Thiruppur College Road, when three persons were traveling in a two wheeler from West to East, at that time, a Water Tanker Lorry driven by the petitioner came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the three persons, who were traveling in the bike fell down and the back tyres of the lorry run over them and all the three persons sustained grievous injuries and they died on the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by three persons and they were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 3 to prove the guilt against the petitioner. Both the Courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the charges and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as mentioned supra.
3. Mr.L.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued only on sentence and not on merits. He would contend that the three persons, who died, were intoxicated, infact, bottles have been recovered, therefore, some sympathy may be shown to the petitioner in reduction of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that the petitioner is repenting for his deeds and that he is a senior citizen, aged 61 years, and he is the sole breadwinner of the family and therefore, he prayed for leniency in reduction of sentence.
4. Mr. V.Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the incident was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3 and they have categorically stated about the guilt of the petitioner. Further, the Courts below have imposed a minimum period of sentence as punishment and it need not be interfered with by this Court.
5. The Courts below also analysed the materials available on record and convicted the petitioner and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and therefore, the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is confirmed.
6. As far as reduction of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to consider reducing the sentence taking into consideration that the petitioner has repented for his deeds and that he is the only sole breadwinner in his family and he is a senior citizen, aged 61 years. Considering the request of the counsel for the petitioner, while upholding the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below, I am inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC from one year rigorous imprisonment to nine months rigorous imprisonment for each count and the sentences are to run concurrently. The sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC stands confirmed. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the petitioner under Section 304(A) of IPC is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences are to run concurrently. It is needless to mention that the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner shall be given set off under B.RAJENDRAN,J paa Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
21-09-2015 paa Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1.The Inspector of Police Thiruppur North Police Station Thiruppur District.
2.The Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Thiruppur.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur.
Crl.R.C. No. 632 of 2009