Madras High Court
Kothandaraman vs State By Its on 25 August, 2021
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.942 of 2019
KOTHANDARAMAN ...Petitioner/Appellant/Single Accused
Vs.
State by its
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Ponnur Police Station
Ponnur
Thiruvannamalai District
(Cr.No.82 of 2006) ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment passed in
Criminal Appeal C.A.No.24 of 2014 dated 03.08.2019 by the Additional
District Judge (FTC) Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, confirming the
Judgment passed in C.C.No.678 of 2006 dated 23.09.2014 passed by the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the Judgment passed
in C.A.No.24 of 2014 dated 03.08.2019 by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC) Arani, Tiruvannamalai District, confirming the
Judgment passed in C.C.No.678 of 2006 dated 23.09.2014 by the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.
2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner in
Crime No.82 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304(A) IPC. After completing the investigation, they laid charge sheet
before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi
and the learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.678
of 2006 and after completing the trial, convicted the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to
undergo one year simple imprisonment and no separate sentence was
imposed for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Challenging the said
Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Tiruvannamalai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
and the learned Sessions Judge taken the appeal on file in C.A.No.24 of
2014 and made over the case to the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, (FTC), Arani, Tiruvannamalai District. The learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, on conclusion of arguments and after re-
appreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in
C.C.No.678 of 2006 dated 23.09.2014. Challenging the said Judgment of
dismissal of appeal, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is the rider of the two wheeler “TVS 50 XL” bearing
Regn.No.TN 25 Y 4009 and even if he wants, he could not drive the
vehicle beyond the speed of 30 kilo meters and that there was no rash and
negligent driving. It is only a collusion because of the fault on the part of
the deceased. He would further submit that the deceased was a pillion
rider. Therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to hit the deceased
and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and in order to get
compensation, they fixed the liability on the petitioner. He would further
submit that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2. Though, the petitioner approached the
appellate Court, the appellate Judge without any valid reason, dismissed
the same. He would further submit that the prosecution has not proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby, the benefit of doubt has to be
extended to the petitioner/accused. Further, the points raised before the
trial Court was not considered and the trial Court without properly
appreciating the entire evidence, convicted the petitioner and both the
Courts below have failed to appreciate the contradictions pointed out by
the defence. Further, the appellate Court has not re-appreciated the entire
evidence properly and simply endorsed the views of the learned
Magistrate which warrants interference of this Court.
4. The learned Government (Crl. Side) would submit that P.W.1 is
the eye witness in this case and he has clearly narrated the manner of
accident. The evidence of P.W.2 and the post mortem certificate are also
corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The learned Counsel for the
appellant pointed out the injuries sustained by the deceased. However,
the opinion of the doctor shows that the deceased sustained head injury
and due to which, he died. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
appreciated the evidence and convicted the petitioner and sentenced as
stated above. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition and the
revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials on record.
6. Admittedly, the case has been registered against the petitioner in
Crime No.82 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304(A) IPC. After completing the investigation, they laid charge sheet
before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi
and the learned Magistrate after completion of trial convicted the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) IPC and
sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and no separate
sentence was ordered for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Challenging
the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal
in C.A.No.24 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Arani, Tiruvannamalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
District confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Magistrate. Challenging, the said Judgment of dismissal of
appeal, the petitioner is present before this Court.
7. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.09.2006 at about 7 p.m.
the defacto complainant was proceeding towards Vandavasi in his two
wheeler “Hero Honda Splendor Plus” bearing Regn. No.TN 23 L 8370
along with his friend Rajendran and when they were proceeding near
Sathya Nagar, the petitioner who was driving his two wheeler “TVS 50
XL” bearing Regn.No.TN 25 Y 4009 in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed on the right knee of the said Rajendran who was traveling along
with the defacto complainant as a pillion rider, due to which, the said
Rajendran fell down and sustained injury on the back side of his head.
Immediately, the said Rajendran was taken to Vandavasi Government
Hospital wherein, he was referred to Chengalpet Government Hospital
for higher treatment and when the injured was taken to Chengalpet
Medical College, he was declared as brought dead.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
8. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused,
on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. A reading
of the evidence of P.W.1 wherein, he has clearly narrated the entire
incident and deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent act of the petitioner. Further, he has deposed that the petitioner
is the person who dashed against the deceased who was sitting in his
vehicle as pillion rider, due to which the deceased Rajendran fell down
and sustained head injury.
9. P.W.1 was not cross examined and that the evidence of P.W.1 was
not challenged. Since, P.W.1 is the eye witness to the accident, he has
clearly spoken about the manner of accident and he has stated that the
accident took place only due to the rash and negligent act of the
petitioner. P.W.2 has also stated that on the date of occurrence there was
an accident due to which, both the vehicles were found lying at the left
side of the road and the said Rajendran had sustained head injury.
Further, he has deposed that at the time of accident, the petitioner who
drove the vehicle was in a drunken state. Therefore, both the Courts
below have rightly appreciated the materials and the evidence of the eye
witness and convicted the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
10. The scope of the revision is very limited. This Court cannot sit
in the arm chair of the appellate Court and cannot appreciate or re-assess
the evidence as trial Court and appellate Court. As a revision Court, this
Court while exercising its power, has to find out whether there is any
perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the Judgments passed by the
Courts below.
11. Accordingly, a completing reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, this Court does not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence
by both the Courts below. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision and
the revision is liable to be dismissed.
12. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, though the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment alone.
13. Accordingly, the Judgment passed in C.A.No.24 of 2014 dated
03.08.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District, confirming the Judgment passed in
C.C.No.678 of 2006 dated 23.09.2014 by the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, is confirmed. However, the sentence of
imprisonment alone is modified to six months simple imprisonment
instead of one year which still meets the ends of justice The respondent
police is directed to secure the petitioner to undergo remaining period of
imprisonment as modified by this Court.
14. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
25.08.2021
ksa-2
To:
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police
Ponnur Police Station
Ponnur
Thiruvannamalai District
4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.
5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.942 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ksa-2
Criminal Revision Case No.942 of 2019
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
