Madras High Court
Pandian vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 14 June, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.617 of 2010
Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs
State through Inspector of Police,
Nathampatti Police Station,
Crime No.126 of 2006,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records from the District and
Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in conforming the
Judgment made in C.A.No.205 of 2007, dated 14.08.2010 in
C.C.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Srivilliputhur, dated 20.09.2007.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, http://www.judis.nic.in 2 in default, simple imprisonment for three months on each count was also imposed. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The Judgment made against the petitioner on 20.09.2007 in C.C.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputhur, was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputhur. By Judgment dated 14.08.2010, the Judgment of the trial Magistrate was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this criminal revision petition has been filed.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing yesterday, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'. When the case was taken up, the learned counsel appeared and submitted that Thiru.Bommayan who filed the revision case had expired and prayed for time. Thiru.Bommayan passed away some time in the year 2012. The petitioner ought to have made an alternative arrangement during the last seven years. He had not done so. When the convicted accused had chosen to file a revision case questioning the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, it is his responsibility to make arrangements for defending http://www.judis.nic.inhimself. Therefore, this Court decided to peruse the records on its 3 own and dispose of the matter. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) was called upon to assist the Court instead of attempting to sustain the Judgments passed by the Court.
3.A careful reading of the original record indicates that one Thiru.Lingam and Tmt.Nalleswari were travelling in a TVS Victor bearing Registration No.TN67R5871 in Srivilliputhur-Madurai main road from south to north on 01.07.2006 at about 03.00 a.m., The said Thiru.Lingam was an Army man. He had come to his native place on leave. He was followed by his brother-in-law Kalidas and the father-in-law in a TVS Two wheeler from behind. The Tempo Van bearing registration No.TN67E2549 driven by the revision petitioner came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler ridden by Thiru.Lingam. Both the Lingam as well as Nalleswari sustained injuries and both of them died on the spot. Therefore, Thiru.Kalidas-P.W.1 filed Ex.P1-complaint. It was registered as Crime No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Nathampatti Police Station (EX.P9). Investigation was undertaken. Ex.P2-Observation Mahazer was prepared. Ex.P10- Rough Sketch was also prepared. The bodies of Lingam and Nalleswari were subjected to postmortem. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 were also obtained. Earlier, inquest was also conducted. The two http://www.judis.nic.inwheeler as well as the tempo van were sent for investigation by the 4 Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4-Inspection Reports were also obtained. The Investigation Officer laid final report and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputhur. Charges were framed for the offences under Section 304(A) of IPC on two counts by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputhur. The revision petitioner denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4.On the side of the prosecution, as many as four witnesses were examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked. M.O.1-series are the photographs of the occurrence spot. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses, were seen the occurrence.
5.This Court carefully went through the evidence of these two witnesses in particular. The suggestion put to P.W.1 was that the deceased Thiru.Lingam being an Ex.Army man, had a drink session throughout the night and that is why, the occurrence had taken place on account of his negligence. It was suggested that there was no occasion for Lingam to travel at such an unearthly hour at 03.00 a.m, when there was no emergent duty to attend. This Court cannot countenance such a suggestion. This is because, http://www.judis.nic.inin the postmortem certificate, there is no mention of any presence 5 of alcohol in the body of the deceased Lingam. P.W.11-Doctor Babuji was the one who performed the post-mortem on the body of Lingam as well as Tmt.Nalleswari. Ex.P8-postmortem certificate issued in respect of Lingam by P.W.11-Doctor Babuji. This Court went through the said postmortem report as well as the deposition of P.W.11. The medical evidence is to the effect that the death happened only due to road accident.
6.On the side of the accused, the only question put in the cross examination was whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased can occur, if they had fallen while riding the two wheeler. The accused did not raise any question to the doctor as to whether the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. This Court can only hold that the suggestion put to P.W.1 was without any basis. The photographs as well as rough sketch-Ex.P10 would indicate that the deceased were going from south to north and they had not ventured into any wrong side and the vehicle had fallen on the extreme western side. The tempo van was sent for inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 21.07.2006. He had given his inspection report under Rule 378 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the same was marked as Ex.P4. In Column No.12, the damage sustained by the vehicle has been mentioned as right side bumper corner, right side headlight, front indicator, right http://www.judis.nic.inside front wheel and front arch. 6
7.This categorically establishes that the two wheeler was coming in the right direction and on the correct side and it was only rash and negligent driving by the petitioner that caused the accident leading to the death of the couple.
8.The learned trial Magistrate, after a proper consideration of the entire materials on records, had rightly found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence in question and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count. The First Appellate Court has also after a careful appreciation of the materials on record declined to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial Magistrate. I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision petition stands dismissed. The trial Magistrate shall take consequential steps to enforce this order.
14.06.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Nathampatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputhur.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputhur. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi Crl.R.C(MD)No.617 of 2010 14.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in