Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019
C.Thimmaraj ...Petitioner
..vs..
State rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District,
Crime No.27 of 2015. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C
to set aside the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur
by order dated 8.2.2018 in C.C.No.4 of 2016 convicting the accused to
undergo imprisonment for three months simple imprisonment for an
offence under Section 279 IPC to undergo three months simple
imprisonment for an offence under Section 337 IPC and also to undero
one year simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 304(A)
(3counts) which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Hosur in C.A.No.13 of 2018 on 29.03.2019.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 29.3.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2015 at about 1.10 p.m., the petitioner drove a car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against two wheeler in which four persons were travelling. Due to the said accident out of four persons three persons died and hence, a complaint has been preferred against the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of occurrence four persons were travelled in the two wheeler and that the accident took place only due to negligent driving of the victim. The de facto complainant/P.W.1 was a pillion rider and she has not preferred the complaint on the occurrence day itself. P.W.2 is only a hearsay witness. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not direct eye witnesses and they are the relatives of the de facto complainant/P.W.1 and hence, they have naturally supported the version of P.W.1. Further, the prosecution witnesses P.W.5, P.W.6, Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 P.W.7 and P.W.9 have given contradictory evidence. There is a lot of differences in preparing mahazar and 161 statement of the witnesses. Both the Courts below failed to consider the facts and without examining the deposition of witnesses, mechanically came to a conclusion that the petitioner/accused committed the offence and convicted the accused, which warrants interference of this Court.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.1/de facto complainant is the injured witness and also an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.1 in her evidence has clearly deposed that at the time of accident, her deceased husband was riding his two wheeler, she herself and two children were travelling as pillion riders and when they nearing to Andhianvadi Checkpost, the petitioner was riding his car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler. Due to the said impact, her husband and two children died. P.W.9, eye witness to the said occurrence has clearly spoken about the same. P.W.12/ Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant/P.W1. Further, Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 other prosecution witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner and there is no merit in the revision.
5. There is no representation for the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7.Admittedly P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and also an eye witness to the said occurrence, since she was travelled as a pillion rider of the two wheeler, which met with an accident. At the time of accident, her deceased husband was riding his two wheeler, she herself and her two children were travelling as pillion riders and the said vehicle was met with an accident. Due to the said impact the de facto complainant's second son died on the spot and herself and her husband and another son sustained grievous injuries and they were rushed to the hospital and thereafter, the de facto complainant's husband and another son died in the hospital. Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 P.W.12/Doctor who gave treatment to the injured has clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and also stated that she was admitted in the intensive care unit and undergone treatment. Further, P.W.9 who is the eye witness to the said occurrence has clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. P.W.8/R.T.O in his evidence has clearly deposed that there is no mechanical defects in the vehicle and the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8. P.W.9 and P.W.12 the prosecution has proved its case that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
8.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 and re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
9. On a combined reading of the evidence of the injured witness and the doctor, who gave treatment to the injured and also the wound certificate and the evidence of the R.T.O, this Court finds that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgments of the Courts below and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the judgment dated 29.3.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur is confirmed.
16.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur.
2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur.
3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.482 of 2019 16.09.2022 Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis