Madras High Court
S.Saseendran vs The State Represented By on 1 December, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
S.Saseendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Paramathi Police Station,
Paramathi Taluk.
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.124 of 2013) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C as against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi on 05.09.2017 made in C.C.No.15 of
2014 by convicting the petitioner/appellant/accused herein under Section
304(A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code which
was confirmed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal on
02.07.2018 made in Crl.Appeal No.57 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.57 of 2017 dated 02.07.2018 on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, thereby confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.15 of 2014 dated 05.09.2017 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, thereby convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2013, at about 11.00 p.m, near Maravapalayam Junction when the deceased was proceeding to have tea in his motor vehicle MAX 100 bearing Registration No. TN 28 D 6970, while crossing the National Highways road, from the opposite side, the accused was driving the bus belongs to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN 57 N 2059 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which, he sustained injury and died. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.124 of 2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.15 of 2014. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
4. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to 8. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Even according to their evidence, while crossing four way National Highway road at Maravapalayam Junction, the deceased turned back and again crossed the road without noticing the bus which was coming from opposite side. The deceased almost crossed the road and extreme western side of the road, the bus hit the deceased. Therefore, it is clear that only because of the negligence on the part of the two wheeler, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018 accident had occurred and there is no fault on the petitioner. Further, there was material contradiction between them with regard to the place of accident. None of the witnesses deposed that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Further, after registration of FIR, the FIR was registered after one week. There was no explanation by the prosecution.
6. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P4. A perusal of Ex.P4 revealed that the accident had occurred in the extreme western side of the four lane, when the bus was driven by the petitioner in a cautioned manner and accident had taken place only because of the negligent part of the two wheeler. Without considering these aspects, the Courts below mechanically convicted the petitioner.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that admittedly the accident had occurred in a four way road at Maravapalayam Junction. When the deceased almost crossed the entire road on the extreme western side of the road, the petitioner drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler. Therefore, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died. The rough sketch was marked as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018 Ex.P4 and it is very clear that only when the deceased almost crossed the road, the bus, without noticing the two wheeler, hit the deceased. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. Heard Mr.C.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was a driver of the bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN 57 N 2059 which was proceeding towards Karur to Namakkal. When the bus was crossing Maravapalayam Junction, the deceased was coming in his two wheeler MAX 100 bearing Registration No. TN 28 D 6970 from Namakkal and turned on his right side in the Maravapalayam Junction and crossed the four way lane from east to west. While he was almost crossing the road, the bus hit the two wheeler and due to which, the victim sustained grievous injuries and died. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
10. The deposition of P.W.1 reads as follows, “,we;Jnghd ma;adhh; bjd;tly; nuhl;oy; fpHf;F gFjp nuhl;oy; bjw;F ,Ue;J tlf;F nehf;fp jpUk;gp gpd; nkw;F nehf;fp brd;whh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nuhl;il FWf;fhf njrpa beL";rhiyapd; nky;g[w nuhl;il fle;jnghJ bjw;F ,Ue;J tlf;fhf brd;w thfdk; nkhjptpll; bjd;why; rhpjhd;/ ehd; mth; gpdd ; hnyna brd;nwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mth; njrpa beL";rhiyapd; nky;g[w nuhl;il flf;f Kw;gl;lhu;/ ehd; njrpa beL";rhiyapd; fPH; g[w nuhl;oy; mjid jhz;oa fpHf;F gFjpapy; epdW; bfhz;oUe;njd;/”
11. The deposition of P.W.2 reads as follows, “ md;iwa jpdk; ma;adhh; njrpa beL";rhiyia FWf;fhf fle;j bjd;tly;nuhl;od; nkw;F Xukhf brd;wnghJjhd; rk;gtk; ele;jJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ ma;adhh; md;iwa jpdk; nuhl;il cldoahf flf;fhjpUe;jjhy; tpgj;J Vw;gl tha;gg; py;iy vd;why; rupjhd;/ ”
12. Thus, it is clear that when the deceased crossed the four way road without noticing the bus which was coming from opposite side and the petitioner could not control the bus and as such hit the two wheeler. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the bus and gave a report which was marked as Ex.P8. It revealed that the right hand side bumper of the bus got damaged. It shows that the deceased drove his two wheeler, without noticing the bus which was coming opposite side to the four way road. Admittedly, the scene of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018 occurrence was a junction crossing. Therefore, there was no possibility for the driver to drive his bus in a rash or negligent manner. While crossing the road, the deceased ought to have seen both sides of the road and thereafter he has to cross the road. If a person suddenly crosses the road, the bus driver, however slow be may driving, may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it may not be possible to hold that the bus driver was negligent. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the petitioner.
13. In view of the above, the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.57 of 2017 dated 02.07.2018 on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, thereby confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.15 of 2014 dated 05.09.2017 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, are hereby set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is allowed.
01.12.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.
3. The Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Paramathi Taluk.
Namakkal District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9 Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J mn Crl.R.C.No.1129 of 2018 01.12.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9