Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12668 of 2022
Sugumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Arakkonam. ... Respondent
Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction imposed by the order
dated 14.06.2022 in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and
sentence in C.C.No.276 of 2006 dated 03.11.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Arul
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2020 passed in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
2. The respondent police registered a case initially against two persons, namely the driver and owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, the case was closed as against the owner of the vehicle. Then, the case was tried against the accused, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-23-Q-7373. After investigation, laid a charge sheet and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C (21 counts) for each count and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 338 IPC (24 counts) for each count and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A)IPC (10 counts) for each count.
3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused has filed an appeal before the Sessions Court and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 and the case was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore District. The II Additional District and Session Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considered the materials, re-appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of the trial court. Challenging the said judgment of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.
4.Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that none of the witnesses have spoken about that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and all the witnesses have stated that after hearing heavy sound from the tyre of the bus, the bus fell into the river. He further submitted that through the narrow bridge, 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 only one vehicle can pass through at a time and the vehicle cannot go with high speed. It can move only with moderate speed. Further he would submit that the accident could not have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Even in the prosecution side, it is stated that the vehicle was not properly maintained and that be the case, when the owner of the vehicle himself got discharged from the case, the driver alone is not responsible to that accident and there is no fault on the part of the revision petitioner. Since out of 55 passengers, 45 of them got injured, some of them sustained simple injury and some of them sustained grievous injury and nearly 10 passengers were died, the Trial Court without any substantiative evidence, based only on sympathy ground, convicted the petitioner. The First Appellate Court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence, simply endorsed the view of the learned Trial Judge, confirmed the judgment of the trial court.
5. He further submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector one who conducted the inspection soon after the occurrence, was not examined before the Court. The officer one who has not conducted the inspection was examined as P.W.26. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 consideration. The prosecution has not stated anything about why they have not examined the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle. During cross examination, all the witnesses have clearly spoken that they have not seen the occurrence since they were sleeping at the time of accident. He further submitted that driver of the vehicle himself sustained injury. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that absolutely there is no material to prove that the the accident had happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence, convicted the petitioner and the appellate court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence, simply endorsed the views of the Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the appeal, which warrants interference of this Court.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that some of the passengers clearly stated that the accident had happened due to negligence on the part of the driver/revision petitioner. Ex.P61, Inspection Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector clearly shows that the accident happened not due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. In order to substantiate the same, he was examined as P.W.26. Further, he 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 submitted that P.Ws.1, 13 and 17 have spoken about the manner of the accident. Due to the accident in which 21 persons sustained simple injuries, 24 persons sustained grievous injuries and 10 persons lost their life. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the entire evidence and found the accused guilty for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) I.P.C., The Appellate Court also confirmed the same. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the Revision Petition.
7. Heard Mr.V.Arul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8. In this case, the accident was admitted. Due to the accident, some passengers were sustained injuries and some of them succumbed to death. The only dispute is the manner in which the accident had taken place. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner accident had not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. According to the prosecution, accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The trial court found that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 vehicle. P.W.1 has also stated that the accident had happened due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. P.W.13 also averred the same. P.W.17 has stated that the bus came with high speed and broken the barricade and fallen from the bridge. Ex.P.61 report of the motor vehicle Inspector also clearly shows that the accident had happened not due to any mechanical defect. Some of the witnesses those who have traveled in the bus at the time of accident have spoken that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a speed brake in the bridge and the bridge is also very narrow and at a time, more than one vehicle cannot be passed through the bridge and therefore accident would not have happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the revision petitioner. As stated by the revision petitioner if the speed brake is on the bridge and the bridge is very narrow, the revision petitioner is not driving the bus for the first time on the bridge and it is a routine route for him. If he drives the vehicle very cautiously with moderate speed, definitely, accident could not have happened. The prosecution has proved that the petitioner drove the said vehicle at the time of accident in a rash and 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 negligent manner. Due to that accident, ten persons were succumbed to death and some persons were sustained injuries.
9. Scope of the revision court is very limited and it cannot act as trial court or the appellate court to re-appreciate or revisit the entire evidence, unless there is a perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and this Court does not find any perversity in appreciation of the evidence and there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.09.2022 mfa Index:yes/No Internet:yes/No 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
3. The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12668 of 2022 16.09.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis