Madras High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs State Represented By on 26 August, 2022
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Revision Case No.140 of 2017
Gopalakrishnan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Chettipalayam Police Station,
Combatore District.
Crime No.256 of 2010 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on
him dated 30.08.2016 made in C.A.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed on him dated 20.02.2015 made in C.C.No.178 of 2010 on
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore by allowing the present
Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondent : S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The revision challenges the judgement of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner dated 30.08.2016 in C.A.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner dated 20.02.2015 made in C.C.No.178 of 2010 on file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused on 19.04.2010 at about 7.45 A.M throughout the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 28 M 6126 in a rash and negligent manner in the Coimbatore to Pollachi Road and knocked down a pedestrian by name parvathy and caused her death and thereby 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017 committed the offence under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC.
3.The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses on their side. P.W.1, P.W.2 , P.W.3 and P.W.5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted Post Mortem of the deceased and he had opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained on the head and the ribs.
The trial Court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses are cogent and established the fact that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Appellate Court confirms the findings of the Trial Court.
4.Heard Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
5.This Court finds that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 establishes the fact that the petitioner drove the lorry in a negligent manner and caused the death of the victim. The 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017 petitioner has not elicited anything in the cross-examination of these witnesses to either disbelieve their version or to show that the petitioner was not guilty of either rashness or negligence. The other witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution also corroborate the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
6.Both the Courts below have elaborately considered the submissions of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is the guilty of offence under Section 304(A) IPC.
7. We find that the Judgements of the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court by invoking its revisional Powers.
8.For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.
4/7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017 26.08.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order vsn To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.
5/7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017 SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vsn Criminal Revision Case No.140 of 2017 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.140 of 2017 26.08.2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis