Madras High Court
Packirisamy … vs The State Represented By Its on 8 July, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015
Packirisamy …Petitioner
Vs.
The State Represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Tittacheri Police Station,
Nagappatinam District,
Crime No.160 of 2012. …Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to revise the judgment dated 18.02.2015 in
Crl.A.No.57 of 2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge,
Nagappattinam, confirming the judgment dated 27.11.2013 in C.C.No.50 of
2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagappatinam.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan (Criminal Side)
Government Advocate
ORDER
Revision Petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rendered for the offence under Section 304 (A) I.P.C. and the sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment and fine of 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 Rs.2000/- in default six months Simple Imprisonment, is before this Court.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2012 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner herein, while driving his tractor coupled with trailer loaded with sand drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit a two- wheeler near Panankattur-Niravi Road and ran over the person riding the said two-wheeler causing his death instantly. The case was registered in Crime No.160 of 2012 under Sections 279 and 304 (A) I.P.C. by the respondent/Police. On completion of investigation, final report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, who confirmed the charges for the offences under Sections 304 (A) and 279 I.P.C. Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and seven documents were marked during trial and held the accused guilty of charges under Sections 304 (A) and 279 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment, with Rs.2000/- fine in default, six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A) and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C.
3.Considering the evidence of P.W.1/de-facto complainant and 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 P.W.3, the trial Court had held that the prosecution has proved that the accused had caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The contention of the accused that these witnesses could not have been the eye- witnesses to the occurrence was disbelieved by the Court. Taking into consideration the damage caused to the tractor and the manner in which the vehicle has ran over the rider of the two-wheels to cause his death, the accused was convicted in the appeal preferred by the accused, the Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence by extracting the portion of evidence given by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 to ascertain the fact that they saw the accused driving the tractor rashly and caused the accident. Hence, Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
4.In the revision petition, it is contended that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are relatives of the deceased and therefore, their evidence should not be relied upon. At the time of accident, the deceased was in drunken state and fell on the road, but this fact has not been considered by the Courts below.
5.The records perused and tested in the light of the above submissions.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015
6.The deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.4 has been relied upon which is extracted by the Appellate Court, which proves the fact that the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the tractor loaded with sand in the trailer. The identity of the driver who was riding the offending tractor also been clearly established through these witnesses. The defence that the victim fell down due to intoxication, is not substantiated or even suggested to post-mortem Doctor, during cross examination and the chemical test also does not reveal the presence of alcohol in the intestine or blood. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no error in the findings of the Court below. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagappattinam, dated 18.02.2015 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2013, confirming the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagappattinam, dated 27.11.2013 in C.C.No.50 of 2013 do not warrant interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the accused to undergo the 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already underdone by the appellant-accused shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
8.In the result, appeal dismissed.
08.07.2022 Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No ep To
1.The Inspector of Police, Tittacheri Police Station, Nagappatinam District, Crime No.160 of 2012
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ep Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2015 08.07.2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis