Madras High Court
Gopinath vs State Represented By on 22 August, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023
Gopinath ...Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pudhupalayam Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
(Cr.No.138 of 2011) ...Respondent
This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C against the judgement dated 11.09.2023 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022
on the Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai
District confirming the judgement dated 16.09.2022 in C.C.No.28 of
2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam,
Tiruvannamalai convicting and sentencing the petitioner herein to
undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for offences under section 279
and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (as amended) and one year
simple imprisonment for offence under section 304(a) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (as amended).
For Petitioner : M/s.S.L.Venkatesan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah, GA (Crl. Side)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm )
Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023
ORDER
This Revision is filed challenging the judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Thiruvannamalai dated 11.09.2023 made in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2022. By the said judgement, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court - the Judicial Magistrate Court Chengam in CC.No.28 of 2013 dated 16.09.2022 was confirmed. By the said judgement, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposed three months simple imprisonment ; of an offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposed simple imprisonment for a period of three months ; and of an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposed one month simple imprisonment.
2. The entire factual matrix of this case have been encapsulated by this Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Nirmal Kumar while passing orders in the Suspension of Sentence on 21.12.2023 and the same is reproduced herewith for ready reference.
“2.The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.28 of 2013 was convicted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 16.09.2022 for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC (each offence) and one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304A IPC. Aggrieved against the same, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 11.09.2023, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.R.C.No.2224 of 2023 along with the instant miscellaneous petitions seeking suspension of sentence and bail.
3.The gist of the case is that on 05.06.2011 at about 7.45 p.m., the de-facto complainant's sister (PW2) and her son Adhitya were returning from the provision shop by walking on the left margin of the road. At that time, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN-23-AH-6421 driven by the petitioner/accused proceeding from Chengam to Kuilam Village, came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against PW2 and her son, in which, PW2 sustained serious injuries and her son succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint of PW1, above case came to be registered for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. PW1 is the eye witness and PW2 is injured eye witness. Both have stated about the manner in which the accident took place. On the complaint of PW1, PW7 registered an F.I.R., took up investigation, visited the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 scene of occurrence, recorded statement of the witnesses including injured witness, conducted inquest on the body of deceased Adhitya, sent the body for postmortem, seized vehicle and sent the vehicle for inspection. After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting reports, charge sheet filed in this case.
4.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 examined and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court on the evidence of witnesses and the materials produced, had convicted the petitioner as stated above, which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
5.The contention of the petitioner is that in this case, the occurrence took place at the night hours and it is stated that PW1 had seen PW2 and her deceased son Adhitya were walking on the side of the road with the aid of the passing vehicle's light, which is highly improbable. Further, PW1 and PW2 had stated that the vehicle had three rolls after the accident and thereafter it was in a capsized position on the road. The petitioner is said to have been arrested on the next day to the occurrence, i.e., on 06.06.2011 but no injury was found on him, which causes some doubt. PW1 and PW2 are distant relatives to the petitioner and they have some motive to implicate the petitioner in this case. Further submitted that in this case neither the Motor Vehicle Inspector nor the post-mortem 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 Doctor examined to prove Exs.P5, P6, P7 and P8 in the manner known to law. The observation mahazar witness/PW6 evidence is that in the blank white paper signature obtained. There is serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution but the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the same. Further submitted that the petitioner has arguable points and fair chance of success in this revision. Hence, he prays for granting suspension of sentence to the petitioner.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes this petition submitting that in this case the young boy Adhitya succumbed to the injuries due to the accident caused by the petitioner. PW2/mother and her son Adhitya walking on the side of the road after purchasing some provisions. At that time the Tata Sumo vehicle driven by the petitioner came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and hit PW2 and her son Adhitya. Thereafter the vehicle capsized after three rolls. PW1, who waited for PW2 had seen the occurrence. PW1 is the eye witness and PW2 is injured eye witness. The other witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, namely, PW3 to PW5 are hearsay witnesses. They spoken about the immediate fact after the accident. The vehicle found in a capsized stage would prove that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner. The non examination of Motor Vehicles Inspector, post-mortem Doctor and the Doctor, who treated PW2 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The petitioner not 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 objected while marking Ex.P6 to P8 and now questioning the same would not be proper. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material, it is seen that according to PW1, the accident took place on the edge of the road but PW2 states that she and her son walking on the side of the road on the mud path. Further, PW1 states that she had seen the accident with the aid of moving vehicles from distance. The presence of PW1 is highly doubtful. As regards PW2, she is an injured witness and the medical records not proved her immediate treatment. The medical records have been marked through Investigation Officer. No Doctor examined and no reason given as to why Doctor has not been examined. Added to it, Motor Vehicles Inspector also not examined. The petitioner was arrested on the next day of accident without any brushes or injuries, which would defy the manner in which accident took place and the petitioner found without any injuries. In view of the same, this Court finds that the finding of the Courts below needs to be reconsidered.”
3. Though the aforesaid findings were made for the purpose of prima facie case, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), I am in full agreement with the findings that are made in paragraph No. 7. This apart, 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 the cross examination of P.W.7 reveals as if the observation mahazar etc., were prepared even before the time of accident. This case is full of corrections in all the relevant documents and also contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. I am of the view that the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court completely overlooked the same. Accordingly, finding merits, this Criminal Revision stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused vide judgement of the trial Court dated 16.09.2022 confirmed by the appellate Court dated 11.09.2023 stand set aside.
22.08.2025
rap
NCC : Yes / No
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai District
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai
3. The Inspector of Police, Pudhupalayam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
7/9https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J., RAP 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023 22.08.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:19 pm )