Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs State Rep By on 3 February, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017
Venkatesan ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation Unit,
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by her judgment dated
15.11.2016 and made in C.A.No.132 of 2014 convicting the petitioner under
Section 304-A of IPC to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment and pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- or Simple Imprisonment for one month and no punishment was
imposed for Section 71 of IPC and for Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 by his judgment dated
05.02.2014 made in C.C.No.171 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunaseelan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the judgment of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 15.11.2016 made in C.A.No.132 of 2014, which confirmed the order of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 05.02.2014 made in C.C.No.171 of 2009.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused before the trial Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2008, at about 8.15 a.m., when the defacto complainant/PW.1 was riding his motorcycle, along with PW.2 as a pillion rider, on Virugambakkam to Arcot Road from east to west, another two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 09 AW 0741 ridden by the deceased Allauddin was also proceeding on the same road; when they came near CSI church, the Corporation bus, which was coming behind them, hit against the vehicle ridden by the deceased and due to which, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries on his head. The back wheel of the bus ran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 over the head of the deceased. In view of that he died on the spot. Hence the accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 304(A) IPC and 184 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. On the complaint given by PW.1-Abdul Rahim, a case was registered by PW.5-Durairaj/ Sub Inspector of Police in Crime No.271/S1/2008 of Traffic Investigation Unit, J-3, Guindy Police Station, and the FIR was prepared as Ex.P.2. PW.6-Elango was the Inspector of Police at the time of occurrence. Since he went on leave, one Dhanavel, Inspector of Police, who held the additional charge, had taken up the case and seized the vehicle involved in the accident and sent the vehicle for inspection and got the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report Exs.P3 and P4. The accused was released on bail on the same day when the FIR was registered. Dhanavel/PW.5 went to the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and prepared the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch. He also examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statement and he conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and prepared inquest report [Ex.P.11]; thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. PW.6/Inspector of Police enquired the doctor who have conducted post-mortem and got post-mortem https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 certificate. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 304(A) IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the materials produced before the Court, the learned trial Judge questioned the accused for the offences under Sections 304 (A) IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.
5. On the side of the prosecution, eight (8) witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.8 and twelve (12) documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. When the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of the prosecution was put to the accused and questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document has been marked.
6. After the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 and convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2014, made in C.C.No.171 of 2009, as follows:-
Rank of Charges Findings of Punishment
the the trial
accused Court
Sole U/s.304-A Found guilty Convicted and sentenced to
accused IPC undergo one year Simple
Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-; in default to
undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment.
184 M.V.Act Found guilty No separate fine amount was
imposed in view of Section 71
IPC
7. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner / accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.132 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the decision of the Appellate Court, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner / accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the evidence the eye witnesses is not reliable for the reason that it has lot of contradictions; the eye witnesses have stated a different version of the stories about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place; the road on which the accident had taken place was not a proper road and that could have also contributed to the accident; the learned trial Judge and the appellate Judge omitted to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and hence the revision petition has to be allowed.
10. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the respondent submitted that the two wheeler ridden by the deceased was going in front of the Government transport bus and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the bus driver; the eye witnesses have also stated about the accident in a clear manner; the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not material contradictions which could defeat the case of the prosecution; the Motor Vehicle Inspector has also given a certificate stating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 that there is no mechanical failure in the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore, it does not require any interference.
11. Points for consideration:
Whether the decision of the learned appellate Judge confirming the guilt of the accused in the appeal basing on the materials available on record is fair and proper?
12. The deceased Allauddin was a medical student at the time of the accident i.e., date of occurrence on 25.02.2008. He was going on Virugambakkam – Arcot road near CSI church; probably because on the fateful day, he might have been going to his college. The defacto complainant/PW.1 who followed the vehicle of the deceased in his two-wheeler had also noticed the deceased driving his two wheeler. PW.1 was riding his motorcycle behind the motorcycle driven by the deceased by having PW.2 as the pillion rider. Both PW.1 and PW.2 have stated in their evidence that the bus was coming behind them and hit against the two wheeler of the deceased on his right. According to the evidence of PW.1, the front left side of the bus had hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Since the deceased fell down from the motorcycle, the back wheel of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 the bus ran over the head of the deceased and caused his death on the spot itself.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court that despite the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 has stated about the manner of the accident in the chief examination, in the cross examination they had given some contrary facts; in the cross examination PW.1, he had asserted that the front left side of the bus hit on the two-wheeler. In fact he had elaborated that it was the side which the women are seated in bus. In the cross examination of PW.2, he has stated that the rear side of the bus hit on the two wheeler. But the fact remains that both the two wheeler drivers had driven their respective two wheeler on the front side of the bus and on the left side of the road.
14. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the motorcycle involved in the accident and has stated that the right side of the motorcycle only got damaged. He has also certified that there is no mechanical failure in both the vehicles involved in the accident. When the bus driver could notice the two wheeler running in front of the bus, he ought to have given a comfortable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 distance and should not have come so close to the two wheelers so as to risk the accident for the two wheeler riders.
15. Though there are some minor contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner it does not shake the case of the prosecution. Since the deceased who was riding the two wheeler was going on the left side of the road and another two wheeler ridden by PW.1 was also following, the bus driver ought to have come in a careful manner so as to avoid going on the extreme left side of the road. Since the driver, being the Corporation bus driver, should have known the condition of the road as he was taking usual trip. It is not the defence of the petitioner that on the day of accident the bus involved in the accident was not driven by him. The learned trial Judge and appellate Judge have appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and arrived at a correct conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the bus driver only. Had the bus driver exercised due caution, he could have avoided the accident by keeping safe distance and also not descending much on the extreme left side of the road. Since the Courts below have rightly held the accused guilty for the offences by properly appreciating the evidence, I do not find any reason for interference. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017
16. However the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accident was unfortunate in the career of the petitioner as the driver of the Corporation and he has not involved in any other accident either before or any time subsequent to this occurrence. By stating so, he requested some indulgence of this Court to reduce the punishment. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has also stated that there is no previous case against the accused.
17. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that some leniency could be shown in the matter of punishment. Accordingly, the sentence of one year Simple Imprisonment is reduced to 3 months Simple Imprisonment.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the judgment of the appellate Court made in C.A.No.132 of 2014, dated 15.11.2016 is modified that the accused found guilty for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month S.I.. The fine amount paid already may be retained. The period of incarceration undergone by the accused can be set off under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to secure NBW to secure the petitioner/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
03.02.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpl To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai .
2.The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Unit, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.N.MANJULA.,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 rpl Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2017 03.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12