Venkatesan vs State: Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 17731 Mad

                                                                              CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 31.08.2021

                                                       Coram:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                       Criminal Revision Case No.572 of 2019
                                                        and
                                        Crl.M.P.Nos.7797 and 7799 of 2019

                      VENKATESAN
                                                                ...Petitioner / Appellant / Accused
                                                          Vs.
                      STATE: Rep. by
                      The Inspector of Police
                      Traffic Investigation
                      Poonamallee
                      Chennai
                                                       ...Respondent /Respondent / Complainant

                      Prayer :      Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401           of
                      Criminal Procedure Code, praying call for the records and set aside the
                      Judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.100 of 2011 dated 20.01.2017
                      on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur, Thiruvalur District
                      and confirmed in C.A.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal
                      Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.


                                    For Petitioner           :Mr.L.Mahendran
                                    For Respondent           : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                      1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                              CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019


                                                      ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to set aside the

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.100 of 2011 dated

20.01.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur,

Thiruvalur District which was confirmed by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District vide C.A.No.23 of 2017

dated 08.04.2019

2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner in

Crime No.457 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279

and 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and Section 4(1)(J) of TNP ACT. After

completing the investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet

before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur, Thiruvalur District

and the learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.100

of 2011 and after completing the formalities, framed charges for the

offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and

Section 4(1)(J) of TNP ACT. The learned Magistrate, after completing

trial, found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and Section 4(1)(J) of TNP ACT

and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 6 months simple

imprisonment for each count the offence under Section 304(A) IPC (2

counts) and imposed fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section

4(1)(J) of TNP Act, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one week. Though, the petitioner was convicted under Section

279 IPC, no separate sentence was imposed. Challenging the said

Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a criminal

appeal before the learned Principal District and Session Judge,

Tiruvannamalai, and the learned Sessions Judge taken the appeal on file

in C.A.No.23 of 2017 and after hearing the arguments and re-

appreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in

C.C.No.100 of 2011 dated 20.01.2017. Challenging the said Judgment of

dismissal of appeal dated 08.04.2019, the present revision has been filed

before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there

is no eye witness to speak about the manner of accident. Though, P.W.1

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

in chief examination had stated that the accused was the cause for the

accident who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 20 AB 4041, in the cross

examination he has not stated anything about the accident and he was not

in a position to say the number of the vehicle which is alleged to have

caused the accident. Therefore, there is a contradiction even in the own

evidence of P.W.1 between his chief examination and cross examination.

He would further submit that it is a case of 2 two wheelers met with an

accident due to collusion for which, the petitioner alone cannot be held

liable for the accident and both the Courts below failed to appreciate the

same. Therefore, the Judgments of the Courts below warrants

interference.

4. The learned Government (Crl. Side) would submit that P.W.1 is

the eye witness to this case and he has spoken about the manner of

accident and two persons died at the spot due to the rash and negligence

driving of the petitioner in a drunken state. He would submit that the

drunk and drive was proved by the prosecution and thereby, the petitioner

was convicted for the offence under Section 4(1)(J) of TNP Act. He would

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

further submit that there was a long gap of about 3 years between the

chief examination and the cross examination and therefore, the

contradiction pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is

countenance. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly 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 petitioner was the rider of the two wheeler

bearing Regn.No. TN20 BW 2439. On the date of occurrence, he was in

an inebriated condition and the prosecution proved the same and thereby,

the petitioner was convicted for the offence drunk and drive under Section

4(1)(J) of TNP Act. Further, due to the drunk and drive, the petitioner

dashed against a two wheeler bearing Regn.No. TN 20 AB 4041 which

came in the opposite direction due to which, two persons died at the spot.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

7. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2011 at 20.45 hours,

the petitioner / accused drove his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 20

BW 2439 with a pillion rider Muthu in a high speed in a drunken mood

from Thandurai to Pattabiram and dashed against the motor cycle bearing

Regn.No.TN20 AB 4041 which was coming from the opposite side due to

which, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN20 AB 4041 by

name Gopi fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot

and the pillion rider of the motor cycle driven by the accused namely

Muthu also fell down and sustained grievous injuries over his head and

died on the spot.

8. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 who is the eye witness to this case and he has clearly stated that at

the time of accident, the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against a two wheeler bearing Regn.No. TN

20 AB 4041 which came in the opposite direction. Further, it was proved

that the petitioner was in an inebriated condition at the time of accident.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner has committed

the charged offence and both the Courts below have rightly appreciated

the evidence.

9. 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 the 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. Unless there is a perversity, the revision Court cannot

interfere with the Judgments of the Courts below.

10. A careful reading of the entire evidence and materials, this Court

does not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Courts

below. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision and the revision is

liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

31.08.2021 ksa-2

To:

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur, Thiruvalur District

3. The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Poonamallee, Chennai

4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.572 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J

ksa-2

Criminal Revision Case No.572 of 2019

31.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in