Madras High Court
V. Sivasamy vs The State Rep on 12 August, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
V. Sivasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep., by
Inspector of Police,
T.I.W. (East), Coimbatore.
(Crime No.154/12) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed against the
petitioner in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court,
Coimbatore dated 25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177
of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015 and
acquit the petitioner in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of the respondent
police.
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent : Mr. N.S. Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
ORDER
This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177 of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.177 of 2012 tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Both the Courts below found him guilty, conviction of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, is challenged in this revision petition.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2012 at about 15.45 hours, near NGB College on the Coimbatore, Chitra to Kalapatti Road, the Tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-38-AR-2995 driven by the petitioner herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Babu, who was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-37-BW-4403. The said accident was witnessed by P.W.1 who is the friend of the deceased 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015 following him in his two wheeler. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, prosecution has registered the case in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police.
3(i). Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the eye witness, the rough sketch marked as Ex.P7 and the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector which were marked as Exs.P3 and P6. Both the Courts below held that the accused had driven rashly and negligently, had come on the right side of the road and hit the two wheeler, causing the death of the said Babu.
3(ii). Taking note of the damages caused to the two wheeler and the Tanker lorry, which was on the right side of the mudguard, the Court held that the prosecution has proved that the accused was driving the Tanker lorry rashly.
3(iii). The appeal preferred by the accused before the Principle Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.108 of 2015 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, this revision petition has been preferred. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused based on the sole evidence of P.W.1 who is an interested witness and his presence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. The Courts below failed to note that the deceased had no valid driving licence and due to his inexperience, he fell on the road and invited the accident.
4(i). Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the factum of accident cannot lead to a presumption that the accident was caused by the Tanker lorry driver. The in-consistence and contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the point of impact between the two wheeler and the Tanker lorry causes the prosecution case doubtful.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, Exs.P3 and P6 and the rough sketch Ex.P7, clearly show that the Tanker lorry was proceeding on the wrong side and hit the two wheeler. Omission to collect the driving license of the deceased is not a material in this case. Since the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015 fact that the accident occurred when the Tanker lorry was proceeding on the wrong side of the road, clearly proved through ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. P.W.1 is the eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are witnesses to the observation mahazar which was marked as Ex.P2. P.W.4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has given the certificate Ex.P3 in respect of the two wheeler driven by the deceased. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the Tanker lorry and given the report, marked as Ex.P6. The post- mortem report, Ex.P4 and the opinion of the post-mortem doctor, Kulandaivelu (P.W.5), reveals that the deceased died out of the injury sustained in the road accident. Particularly, the head injury which has caused fracture of scalp and exposure of brain. The limp of the deceased found crushed.
7. The case of the prosecution is that the Tanker lorry hit the two wheeler head down and the rider of the two wheeler was run over by the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015 rear wheel of the Tanker lorry is proved through the injuries found in the post-mortem report and the damage of right side front mudguard of the Tanker lorry has found in Ex.P6. The alleged damage of two wheeler as found in Ex.P3 indicates the front wheel handle bar mirror and head lights are totally crushed and damaged. Therefore, inconsistency pointed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the deposition of P.W.1 regarding the point of impact fails to impress in the light of oral evidence placed by the prosecution.
8. Therefore, this Court finds no error in convicting the petitioner / accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304(A) IPC.
9. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has a family to support and he is making out his livelihood as a driver, instead of one year simple imprisonment, sentence is modified to undergo three months simple 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015 imprisonment. The fine amount imposed for offence under Section 279 IPC and for offence under Section 304(A) IPC is confirmed.
10. In fine, the petitioner / accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo three months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.
12.08.2022 AT Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT To
1.The Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police, T.I.W. (East), Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
12.08.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis