Madras High Court
A.Kumar vs State By on 28 August, 2014
Author: C.T. Selvam
Bench: C.T. Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.08.2014
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2013
A.Kumar .. Petitioner
vs.
State by
Sub Inspector of Police,
Ponnai Police Station,
Vellore District .. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 12.12.2012 made in C.A.No.23 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and conviction dated 26.11.2009 made in C.C.No.8 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Wallajahpet.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Government Advocate(Crl.side)
*****
O R D E R
This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.279, 337 and 304-A IPC and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.279 IPC; fine of Rs.500/- i/d 2 weeks S.I. for offence u/s.337 IPC and 1 year R.I. for offence u/s.304-A IPC.
2. The revision petitioner stood trial for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC in case tried in C.C.No.8 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Walajapet. The prosecution case was that an accident occurred on 02.10.2007 at about 06.40 hours. A milk van driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased, who was proceeding towards his poultry farm on the Kannikapuram Arundhadhipalayam Road. In the impact, the victim died on the spot and the milk van was thrown to the right side of the road and dashed against a tree.
3. A case was registered in Crime No.73 of 2007 and pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 9 exhibits and 2 material objects. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.
4. On examination of the materials before it, the trial Court found the charges proved and convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as follows:
(i)for offence u/s.279 IPC, fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month S.I;
(ii)for offence u/s.337 IPC, fine of Rs.500/- i/d. 2 weeks S.I.; and
(iii)for offence u/s.304-A IPC 1 year R.I.
5. Against his conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.23 of 2010, which came to be dismissed under judgment of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, dated 12.12.2012.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).
7. PWs.1, 2 and 6 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1, after informing the Police Station, helped in moving the deceased to the Wallajahpet Government Hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by P.W-13, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.13 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared sketch-Ex.P6 and mahazar Ex.P7. He has also recorded the statement of P.W.9-Photographer. Injured in the accident was examined as P.W.10. P.W.14, Inspector of Police, filed the final report on completion of investigation. Though the defence case was to the effect that there is no evidence to prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the Courts below, on appreciation of materials and evidence before it, found that the accident occurred on the left side of the road and the deceased was found six feet away from the road, which showed that the deceased was thrown away from the place of occurrence owing to the impact. The Courts below found that since the deceased was found on the left side of the road, the possibility of occurrence while he was crossing the road cannot be believed. The Courts below found that after the occurrence, the petitioner lost control leading to the van swerving to the mud portion on the right of the road, dashing against a telephone post and thereafter a tree, which had fallen. It was reasoned that if the accused had driven the vehicle in gradual speed and with control, the van could not have gone to the right side of the road, after the accident. The trial Court, on the basis of damage caused to the van and the other attendant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and convicted the petitioner.
8. This Court finds the judgments of the Courts below well-justified. The prosecution has made out a clear case of offences u/s.279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Though learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused could be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, this Court is of the view that the present is not a fit case to invoke provision 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
This Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed. The judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.279, 337 and 304-A IPC shall stand confirmed. The petitioner shall now be taken into custody towards serving the remaining portion of the sentence yet to be undergone by him.
28.08.2014 Index: Yes/No Website: Yes/No msk/gm To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore,
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Wallajahpet
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnai Police Station, Vellore District
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 600 104.
C.T. SELVAM, J.
msk/gm Crl.R.C.No.1551 of 2013 28.08.2014