K.Arjunan vs State Rep.By The
2021 Latest Caselaw 10883 Mad

                                                                                      Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 28.04.2021

                                                        CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                   Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021


                     K.Arjunan                              ...    Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     State rep.by the
                     Inspector of Police,
                         Police Station,
                     Kavundapadi Police Station,
                     Erode District.                        ...    Respondent

                     (Crime No.336 of 2013)



                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
                     the Judgment dated 04.07.2020 made in C.A.No.38 of 2019, on the file of the III
                     Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam and
                     confirming the Judgment in C.C.No.108 of 2013, dated 09.07.2019, on the file of
                     the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam.




                     1/10




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021




                                  For Petitioner      :      Mr.N.Chinnaraj

                                  For Respondent      :      Mr.K.Mathan
                                                             Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the judgment passed in

C.A.No.38 of 2019, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam , dated 04.07.2020, confirming the

Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam, in

C.C.No.108 of 2013, dated 09.07.2019.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2013, at about 08.15 p.m.,

when the defacto complainant with his cousin were proceeded from Erode to

their residence after their work by motorcycle, the deceased also proceeded in

the same direction in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-AH-2904 on

the left side of the road and at that time, the petitioner / accused who was

driving the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-L-2974 on the same direction,

i.e., east to west with granite stones load for the purpose of off loading the

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

same at G.V.Ceramics. During the course of his driving, the petitioner / accused

passed G.V.Ceramics and proceeded to some extent. After realizing the same,

the petitioner / accused suddenly driven his lorry towards west to east by

reverse and dashed against the deceased the vehicle. In that process, the the

deceased sustained grievous injury and he was taken to K.M.C.H.Hospial, Erode,

where he was reported dead.

3. Before the trial Court, 11 witnesses were examined as Exs.P1 to P11

and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8, and no material object was

exhibited. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating

circumstances, he denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no witness was

examined nor any document marked. The trial Court, after hearing the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, convicted the

revision petitioner/sole accused for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and

imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple

imprisonment and also convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under

Section 304 (A) of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo one year simple

imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial

court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.38 of 2019, which was

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

heard by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at

Gobichettipalayam. The first appellate Court confirmed the conviction and

sentence of the trial court. Challenging the Judgment of the courts below, the

revision petitioner/accused is before this court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

eyewitnesses / P.W.1 and P.W.2 are close relatives of the deceased and they are

interested witnesses and during the cross examination, they have admitted that

they have not directly seen the occurrence. It is further submitted that the

deceased had ridden the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit back

side of the stationed lorry and due to which, the accident had occurred and as

such, the petitioner is no way responsible for the accident. P.W.1 has admitted

during the cross examination that he has not filed the complaint on the same

day and obtained the signature on the next day, which clearly show that P.W.1

is not the author of the complaint and therefore, it is highly doubtful. However,

the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and wrongly convicted the

appellant on sympathy ground, and therefore, prays for setting aside the orders

of the Courts below.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that

both the courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and

believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of

the offence, convicted the revision petitioner for rash and negligent driving of

the vehicle and passed proper sentence, which do not require any interference

by this court and the petitioner / accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays

that the criminal revision may be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the

materials placed on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle bearing registration

No.TN-34-L-2974 was driven by the revision petitioner and the deceased was

riding the motorcycle bearing the registration No.TN-33-AH-2904. It is to be

noted that the accused after passing the correct place where the granites will

off loaded, realized the same and immediately driven his vehicle in reverse

manner without any signal and in a rash and negligent manner, and at that

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

time, the deceased who was following the lorry, dashed against the lorry and

due to which, he sustained injury and died. P.W.1 and P.W.2 who have seen the

occurrence with the distance of 100 feet have clearly deposed that at the time

of accident they were also proceeding on the same direction and they deposed

that the driver of the vehicle with granite load proceeded to G.V.C.Ceramics

unfortunately, he has passed the place then to reach the correct destination on

reverse direction, the vehicle was moved in a rash and negligent manner, in the

result the accident had happened.

8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that P.W.1

and P.W.2 have deposed that in their cross examination that the signature

obtained from him only on the next day of the accident, the fact remains that

the accident had occurred on 25.08.2013 and the deceased was also brought to

the Hospital on the same day i.e., on 25.08.2013 and therefore, the accident is

not disputed. The only dispute raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

9. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed that when they were proceeding on the

east to west direction, the accused with granite load proceeded to G.V.Ceramics

unfortunately he has passed the place then to reach the correct destination on

reverse direction without any signal, in a rash and negligent manner, due to

which, the deceased who was following the offending vehicle dashed against the

vehicle and in the result, the accident has happened. Though the learned

counsel for the petitioner would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are relatives to

the deceased and they are interested witnesses, but the petitioner has not

stated in the evidence that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not present at the time of

accident.

10. It is to be noted that a perusal of rough sketch (Ex.P7) the place of

occurrence has been marked in the southern side of the road. It is further to be

noted that a perusal of Ex.P3, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, several

scratch and dent marks found at rear most cross member centre portion for 1/2

feet, except the above damage no other damage was found in the lorry. From

the above, it could be seen that the petitioner had driven the lorry in reverse

direction i.e., from west to east. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2

it could be seen that the petitioner to reach the correct destination to unload

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

the granites, came on the reverse direction without any signal in a rash and

negligent manner, and due to which, the accident had occurred.

11. This Court has to decide whether the accident has occurred only due

to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle. Both the courts below

discussed the oral and documentary evidence and found that the accident had

happened due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. Since this

Court is a revisional Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot sit

in the arm chair of the appellate Court and what has to see is as to whether the

courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and whether there is any

perversity in appreciating the evidence. On a reading of the entire evidence,

everything is proved by the prosecution. Even on seeing the rough sketch and on

going through the evidence of P.W.1 it is seen that the revision petitioner drove

the vehicle in the reverse direction i.e., from west to east and due to which, the

deceased who was following the vehicle dashed against it, and sustained injury

and died.

12. This court, after going through the records, is of the considered view

that the Courts below have not committed any mistake or error in rendering a

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

finding to hold the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offences with which

he stood charged. However, considering the fact that the revision

petitioner/accused is the breadwinner of the family and the accident had not

occurred with an intention, this court finds that the sentence imposed on the

revision petitioner/accused requires modification.

13. In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed. While confirming the

conviction, sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified and the

revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to suffer six months SI for the offence

under Section 304(A) IPC. The fine amount imposed by the trial court is

confirmed. The period of sentence if any, already undergone by the revision

petitioner/accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The revision

petitioner/accused, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already

undergone shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period.

28.04.2021

Speaking Order / Non-speaking order

Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes.

rns

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

Crl.R.C.No.97 of 2021

28.04.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in