Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 21.10.2021 made in CA.No.48 of 2021, by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act at Namakkal, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 24.02.2021, made in CC.No.116 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal, thereby convicting and sentencing the Revision https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Petitioner/Accused, Boopathi, for the offences under Section 279 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and under Section 338 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and under Section 304A of IPC to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment.

13. Now, in the present case, the question is whether the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of the trial courts, convicting and sentencing the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC are justifiable or not?

14. In order to attract the provisions of 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, the Prosecution has to prove the essential ingredient of rash and negligent manner on the part of the Revision Petitioner/accused, by letting in valid and cogent evidence. In the present case, in order to come to a conclusion as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Revision Petitioner under the provisions of Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, by valid and cogent evidence and whether the trial courts are right in coming to the conclusion that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, it has become necessary for this Court to analyse the entire evidence, both oral and documentary evidence, in a proper and perspective manner.

41. In sum and substance, in the present case, this Court is of the view that the delay in registering of the First Information Report and sending the same to the concerned Court creates a doubt and suspicion over the case of the Prosecution in implicating the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. PW.1 to PW.3 are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interested witnesses and as per their evidence, they cannot be treated to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence and hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon. There is no other independent eye witness to the occurrence. None of the Prosecution witnesses has spoken about the factum of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Revision Petitioner/accused. There is no evidence to prove the allegation of rash and negligence against the Revision Petitioner/accused, even though PW.3, who is the wife of the deceased accompanying him, did not recognise the Revision Petitioner nor said that he was driving the vehicle rashly and with negligence. Further, non-examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Doctor concerned to corroborate the documents filed by them, is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The Prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing the ingredients in respect of rash and negligent aspect required for all the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. Both the trial courts have not assessed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondent has not been able to point out any evidence on record to prove the charges under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC against the Revision Petitioner/ accused.

46. In the present case, in the absence of any concrete and convincing evidence to show that by the statement of the witnesses, offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC have not been proved against the Revision Petitioner/Accused. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner/Accused under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC merely on the unreliable testimony of the Prosecution witnesses, whose evidence is not worthy of credence, as they are not acceptable in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial courts under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC against the Revision Petitioner/Accused cannot be sustained and accordingly, are liable to be set aside.