Madras High Court
Nagaraj vs The State on 22 December, 2017
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2017 Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 04.12.2017 22.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.R.C.(MD). No.750 of 2008 Nagaraj ... Petitioner / Appellant / Accused -vs- The State rep. by the Inspector of Police Ettaiyapuram Police Station Thoothukudi District (Cr.No.21 of 2005) ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(i) r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment, dated 10.10.2007, made in C.A.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, confirming the conviction made in in C.C.No.91 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti vide Judgment, dated 14.02.2006. !For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar ^For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
The petitioner / accused has filed this revision, challenging the Judgment, dated 10.10.2007, made in C.A.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, confirming the Judgment, dated 14.02.2006, in C.C.No.91 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti.
2. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet, is that on 21.01.2005, at about 01.20 p.m., in Tuticorin ? Ettayapuram Main Road, near Rasi Hotel, the petitioner / accused drove the lorry bearing registration No.TN 67 B9115, from north to south direction and when he tried to overtake a lorry, which was proceeding in front of his lorry, dashed against a van bearing registration No.TN01 B7188, which was coming in the opposite direction. In the said accident, the passengers who travelled in the van, namely, Santhi, wife of Mohanasundaram, Santhi, wife of Senthur and Muthukumar had died on the spot, Lakshmanan, Petchimuthu, Jayabalan, Perinbam, Ramalakshmi, Rajamani, Baskaran, Jeyamari, Seethalakshmi and Soundrapandi had sustained simple injuries and Anitha Mary had sustained grievous injuries, thereby, the petitioner / accused, driver of the the lorry bearing registration No.TN 67 B9115 had committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (ten counts), 338, 304(A) (three counts) I.P.C.
3. On receiving the information with regard to the said incident, the respondent ? Police rushed to the hospital wherein the injured were admitted, recorded the statement of witnesses and registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2005. Subsequently, the respondent ? Police, after thorough investigation into the matter, filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, who took cognizance of the final report in C.C.No.91 of 2005. Thereafter, the Trial Court had framed charges under Sections 279, 337 (ten counts), 338 and 304(A) (three counts) I.P.C against the petitioner / accused.
4. When the petitioner / accused was explained and questioned about the charges framed against him, he had denied the charges framed against him and sought for trial to prove his case and accordingly, trial was conducted.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked and on the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
6. After completion of trial and after examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 14.02.2006, found the petitioner / accused guilty for the offence under Sections 279, 337 (ten counts), 338, 304(A) (three counts) I.P.C and convicted him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 304(A) (three counts) I.P.C., and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment; to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 337 (ten counts) I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. (three counts) and further ordered the period of sentence shall run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner/accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
7. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner / accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.29 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi and the learned Appellate Judge, by Judgment dated 10.10.2007, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed.
8. When the matter is taken up for disposal, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea only in respect of quantum of sentence and submitted that the occurrence had happened on 21.01.2005 and that after the occurrence, he is also out of employment and more than 12 years have elapsed, prayed that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced.
9. I have gone through the evidence on record and the judgments of both the Courts below.
10. It is the case where three persons have lost their valuable lives, ten persons have sustained simple injuries and one person has sustained grievous injury due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 304(A) (three counts) I.P.C., and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment; to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 337 (ten counts) I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and directed the sentences to run concurrently. The appellate court has also confirmed the same. This Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have already passed a lenient sentence. However, no appeal has been filed for enhancement by the State.
11. In State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that:
?14. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court.
15. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.?
12. In view of the above discussion and taking note of the above decision, I find no interference is warranted in this case to show further leniency to the petitioner / accused in the interest of justice.
13. Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed. The Judgment, dated 10.10.2007, made in C.A.No.29 of 2006, by the file of the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, confirming the Judgment, dated 14.02.2006, made in C.C.No.91 of 2005, by the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, is hereby confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the petitioner / accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the petitioner / accused shall stand cancelled. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner/accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
To:
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Ettaiyapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District..