Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the petitioner drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Even according to the case of the prosecution while crossing the road the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle and dragged him for 10 ft. Therefore, he sustained head injury and died. The eye witnesses of the occurrence was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Even according to them there is no whispering that the petitioner drove the car in a rash and negligent manner to attract the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The occurrence had taken place inside the Port where there is a speed breaker in between the place of accident. Therefore, absolutely there was no possibility for the petitioner to drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Even the cross examinations of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:23:58 pm ) witnesses revealed that there were several container lorries parked adjacent to the road. If the petitioner drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 might not have seen the registration number of the offending vehicle. There is contradictory statements between P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to noting down the registration number of the offending vehicle. Without considering the above facts and circumstances both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 304 (A) IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that in order to prove the case of prosecution they have examined the eye witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are also drivers and they invited the deceased for dinner. When the deceased almost crossed the road, the petitioner drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and dragged him for 10 ft. and as such the deceased to succumbed head injuries. The way in which the deceased suffered head injuries shows that the offending vehicle was driven by the petitioner in a high speed manner. Further there is a speed breaker and without noticing the speed breaker the petitioner drove his car in a high speed manner and hit the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case beyond any doubt and trial Court and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:23:58 pm ) the appellate Court have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The deceased was a driver by profession and he along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 parked the vehicle for their dinner. They were working as a driver in a shipping agency. On 13.08.2017 at about 09.30 p.m. when P.W.1 and P.W.2 invited the deceased for dinner, after parking the vehicle, the deceased crossed the road. At that time the petitioner was proceeding in a car bearing Reg. No. TN 18 AE 7734 and hit the deceased and dragged him for 10 ft in the road. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 invited the deceased for dinner and when the deceased crossed the road after parking his vehicle, the vehicle driven by the petitioner hit and dragged him for 10 ft. However, in the cross-examination of PW1 he deposed that he did not notice the registration number at the time of hit but only when the offending vehicle took U-turn and proceeded the opposite side, he noted the registration number. P.W.2 deposed that the offending vehicle was driven by the petitioner in a high speed manner without noticing the speed breaker. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not even whisper that the petitioner drove his car in a rash https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 01:23:58 pm ) and negligent manner.

8. On perusal of the rough sketch it is revealed that the place of accident is situated between two speed breakers. Therefore, there would be no possibility for the petitioner to drove his car in a rash and negligent manner. That apart, in both sides there were lorries parked in the place of accident. It is not the case of hit and run. Further, while the deceased was crossing the road, the offending vehicle hit him. It shows that the deceased without noticing both sides of the road had crossed the road. The occurrence had took place at about 09.30 p.m. and there were no lights adjacent to the road. Therefore, the visibility of the road was less and the offending vehicle hit the deceased. Further, even assuming that the offending vehicle was driven by the petitioner in a high speed manner, it would not amount to rash and negligent driving, that too when the deceased was crossing the road without noticing both sides of the road.