Madras High Court
Ramamurthy vs State By on 5 June, 2015
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2010 Ramamurthy .. Petitioner Vs State by Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District. .. Respondent (Cr.No.181 of 2007) Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 20.02.2010 passed in C.A.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, confirming the order dated 09.12.2009, passed vide order in C.C.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyadurai For Respondent : Mr.R.Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
Being aggrieved by the judgments in C.C.No.176 of 2007, dated 09.12.2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet and Crl.A.No.3 of 2010, dated 20.02.2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, the present revision case is filed.
2. Facts of the case, as deduced from the judgments, are that on on 02.04.2007, about 08.45 P.M., when Subash, S/o. Gandhi, was standing on the mud road, before a Tea Shop at Periyasevalai Village, Madapattu-Thirukovilur Main Road, a Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN 32 Z 1020, with Trailor, bearing Registration No.TDF 3104, driven in a rash and negligent manner, without any horn, dashed against the said Subash. The victim lateron died. On the complaint of PW.1 Gandhi, PW.12 Rajaram, Head Constable, Thiruvanainallur Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.181 of 2007, for the offences, under Sections 279, 337 IPC. The said complaint has been marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Investigation was taken up by PW.13, Inspector of Police, Thiruvanainallur Police Station and in the presence of Pws.7 and 9, Radhakrishnan and Palani, Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar, Ex.P6 Sketch and Ex.P7 Post-Mortem Certificate, have been marked. The petitioner thereafter surrendered before the police and remanded to judicial custody. PW.11 Motor Vehicles Inspector has conducted an inspection and submitted his report, which is marked as Ex.P4. PW.6 is the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem. Thereafter, a charge sheet has been filed, under Section 304-A IPC. Though 15 witnesses have been cited, 13 were examined and 7 documents were marked.
3. PW.1, father of the deceased, Subash, in his evidence, has deposed that when his son was waiting to take a bus to Avanasi, a Tractor-cum-Trailer, dashed against him. He has further stated that on the way to the hospital, his son died. Witnesses, Pws.2 to 5, have adduced evidence, regarding the accident. PW.8 has been treated as hostile. Pws.7 and 9 were witnesses to Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar. PW.10, Police Constable, Moideen, has adduced evidence, regarding handing over the body to post-mortem. PW.6, Doctor, has adduced evidence that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries. Ribs 3, 4, 5 and 6 were broken. There was a grievous injury in the right lung. He has opined that the death could have been due to the grievous injuries, blood loss and shock. PW.11, Motor Vehicles Inspector, has stated that there was no mechanical defect.
4. Before the trial Court, the accused has contended that as the accident was stated to have occurred at 08.45 P.M., there was no possibility of anybody, witnessing the accident and nobody has spoken, as to which part of the body of the tractor, hit the deceased. However, adverting to the above, the trial Court has observed that PW.3, during cross-examination, had categorically stated that firstly, it was the Tractor and thereafter, the left side wheel of the Trailor, had run over the deceased. The trial Court took note of the fact that in Ex.P6 Sketch, a street light was mentioned. The trial Court has also noticed that though Pws.1, 3 and 4, in their cross-examination, have stated that they have witnessed the accident, only after hearing the noise, evidence of Pws.2 and 5 throw sufficient light regarding the accident. On the above oral testimony and Ex.P6 Sketch, the trial Court has rejected the defence. The trial Court has rejected the defence that nobody has identified the accused and also the contention that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge.
5. On the contention that the witnesses examined were relatives and hence, their testimony should not be believed, by observing that the testimony of the witnesses was cogent and acceptable and considering the oral testimony of PW.2, Elumalai and PW.5, Sankar, that the vehicle was driven by the accused, causing death, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet, by judgment and decree, dated 09.12.2009, made in C.C.No.176 of 2007, imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. Being
6. In Crl.A.No.3 of 2010, the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has failed to notice the contradiction in the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, 7 and 9. He has further contended that nobody has deposed that they have witnessed him. PW.8, in his evidence, has not stated that at the time of accident, he was at the place of accident. According to the defence, no name was reported in the First Information Report. Also, there is no evidence, proving that at the time of accident, the accused had driven the vehicle. Documents produced by the prosecution have not been properly considered by the trial Court. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that the conviction recorded is erroneous. Without prejudice to the above, the petitioner has contended that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the charges.
7. Adverting to the evidence of the witnesses, the appellate Court has observed that the eye-witnesses have seen the accident, in particular, when the vehicle, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased. However, the driver had escaped from the scene of occurrence. Only on 04.04.2007, at 6.30 P.M., the petitioner seemed to have surrendered before the Police. Since the accident had occurred on 02.04.2007, the appellate Court has observed that if the petitioner had not driven the vehicle on 02.04.2007, there was no reason, as to why, the petitioner himself had surrendered before the Police and thereafter, remanded to judicial custody.
8. Though the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR., PW.1, during cross-examination, he had categorically deposed that subsequently, he came to know that the offending vehicle was driven by the petitioner. The appellate Court has noticed that PW.11, Motor Vehicles Inspector has categorically mentioned the name of the petitioner in his report, Ex.P4. The appellate Court has also noticed that the petitioner had not made any objections, when his name was recorded in the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report.
9. Thus, assessing the testimony of Pws.1, 2, 3 and 5, duly corroborated by the entry made in Ex.P4 Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report and taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, in surrendering before the police on 04.02.2015, the appellate Court found that there is no manifest illegality in the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting in the death of Subash.
10. Though Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider that there is no material evidence, oral or documentary, to establish the guilt of the petitioner to hold that the petitioner drove the vehicle at the time of accident, especially when the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR., and further contended the Court below has erred in relying on the evidence of PW.11, Motor Vehicles Inspector that the petitioner drove the vehicle, at the time of occurrence and that there was no evidence of rash and negligent and also placed a reliance on a decision that mere injuries are not sufficient to constitute a conviction, this Court is not inclined to accept the abovesaid contentions, for the reason that the witnesses, Pws.1 to 5, 7 and 9 have spoken about the factum of accident. They have also deposed that though there was a street light, which is also corroborated by Ex.P6 Sketch. No sooner, the vehicle hit against the deceased, the driver had escaped from the scene of occurrence. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to extract Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dealing with the duty of the driver in case of an accident and injury to a person, which is as follows:
134. Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person:- when any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall -
(a) unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural formalities, unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise,
(b).
(c).
11. As observed by the Courts below, witnesses would not have had a clear vision of the accused, which they have also admitted in their evidence. But the accident had caused grievous injuries to the victim, who had sustained fracture of ribs 3, 4, 5 and 6. There were lacerated injuries in the right forearm, left chest, left thigh, left knee and right knee. Ex.P2 Post-Mortem Certificate further revealed that there was congestion in the lungs and that approximately 3,000 ml blood had been clotted in chest joints. PW.6, Doctor, who had conducted Post-Mortem, has deposed that death would have been caused due to loss of blood, grievous injuries and shock. On the way to the hospital, the deceased had lost his breath.
12. Repeatedly, it has been urged before the Courts below that the petitioner had not driven the vehicle and caused the accident. If that be the case, as rightly observed by the Courts below, there is absolutely no reason, as to why, the petitioner had surrendered before the Police on 04.04.2007. If a person had not caused any accident, there is no need for him to surrender before the Police.
13. The other contention that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner, on the basis of Ex.P4 Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, also cannot be countenanced for the reason that his evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses also. Conviction is not solely, on the basis of the evidence of PW.1. It may be a fact that the petitioner had denied the charge before the Court, but certainly, there is no answer, as to why, he had surrendered before the Police.
14. Yet another ground for reversal is that the prosecution witnesses are all interested. Merely because, some of the witnesses are from very same village, as rightly observed by the Courts below, their evidences cannot be rejected. No manifest illegality or perversity is shown in the findings of the Courts below, warranting interference.
15. Though a prayer for reduction of sentence, has been made, in the event of this Court, not inclined to accept reversal sought for, considering the conduct of the petitioner, in running away from the scene of occurrence, and hence this Court is not inclined to reduce the sentence. Hence, conviction and sentence is confirmed and the revision case is dismissed. No costs.
05.06.2015 Index: Yes Internet: Yes skm To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet.
3. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
skm Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2010 05.06.2015