Dhanasekaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 23654 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 02.12..2021

                                                         CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

                Dhanasekaran                                                              .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

                State of Tamil Nadu
                Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
                Tindivanam Police Station,
                (Cr.No.212 of 2011)
                Villupuram District.                                                      .. Respondent

                Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
                to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.06.2014 made in
                C.A.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions
                Judge of Tindivanam confirmed the order dated 11.11.2013 in C.C.No.45 of
                2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tindivanam, set
                aside the same and allow the revision.

                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu

                                   For Respondent      : Mr.L.Baskaran
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused against the

judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam dated 11.11.2013

in C.C.No.45 of 2013, thereby convicting the petitioner/accused for the

offences under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of I.P.C and imposing a fine amount

of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C in default to undergo one

month Simple Imprisonment; for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C, fine

amount of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment

and a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under

Section 304-A of I.P.C and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month

Simple Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tindivanam dated 27.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.80 of 2013

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

2. On 28.04.2011, one Lakshmanan, P.W.1 lodged a complaint that on

the same day, at about 5.00 P.M at Tindivanam - Chennai National Highway at

M.R.S Road Junction, the accused drove the Tata Ace goods vehicle, bearing

registration No.TN 32 Q 0788 without checking both sides, in a high speed and

negligent manner, entered into the highway turning right hand side and hit a

black colour Apachi motorcycle, bearing No.TN 32 M 8542, which was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

proceeding towards Chennai from Tindivanam resulting in head injury to the

rider of the said motorcycle namely, one Maniraj, who succumbed to said

injuries on the way to the hospital and the pillion rider, namely, one Karthik

was injured on the right shoulder and leg, besides other injuries. P.W.12, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Mani, registered the F.I.R and P.W.14 took up the case for

investigation and laid a charge sheet proposing the petitioner/accused guilty for

the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam took cognizance of

the offence in C.C.No.45 of 2013 and issued summons to the

petitioner/accused. Upon the copies being furnished and being questioned, the

accused denied the charges and stood trial. The prosecution examined 14

witnesses in this case including the first informant one Lakshmanan as P.W.1

and the other injured victim, Karthik as P.W.7. The prosecution marked Exs.P1

to P10 and rested its case.

4. Upon being questioned about the evidence on record and the adverse

circumstances against the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused

denied the same. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence

and the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

and the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused.

5. The Trial Court, upon considering the evidence of P.W.2, eye witness,

P.W.4, eye witness and the evidence of P.W.7, the other injured victim and the

ocular witness P.W.9, and after considering the fact that the vehicle was driven

in a high speed without checking out for the vehicles on both sides, it entered

the highway on the wrong side of the road held that the petitioner drove in a

rash and negligent manner by considering Ex.P8 rough sketch and Ex.P6

observation mahazar and therefore, concluded that the prosecution proved the

charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner/accused and

sentenced as stated above.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused herein preferred

Crl.A.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tindivanam and the learned Appellate Judge again,

considering the inspection report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the eye

witnesses namely, P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 9, came to the independent conclusion that

the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, even while confirming

the findings of the Trial Court. The submissions on behalf of the

petitioner/accused based the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector stating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

that the left hand side rear corner of the vehicle was damaged, was rejected and

the Appellate Court held that the said damage was in no manner in connection

with the accident. The Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and the

sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

7. Heard Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the

respondent.

8. After taking this Court through the evidence on record, the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time on merits, would submit

that the petitioner was 35 years of age, when the accident took place. The

accident took place in the year 2011. Now, 10 years time have lapsed. The

petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not involved in any other offences,

whatsoever, either prior to the said accident or subsequently. He is no more

driving any vehicle, but, he is working as an agricultural coolie. The petitioner

is married to one Chitra and has two female children by name Manimegalai,

who is aged 18 years and studying 12th standard and Lavanya, who is aged 16

years and studying 11th standard. He would further submit that already he was

incarcerated for a period of 15 days and he has also paid the fine amount. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

Placing these facts, he would submit that considering policy of the sentencing

and considering the socio economic documents of the accused, prayed this

Court to impose appropriate punishment on the petitioner by confining to the

period already undergone. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

confirms the manner of the accident as well as the particulars as to the period of

incarceration and the family particulars and also the antecedents of the

petitioner.

9. In view of the above submissions, considering the manner of the

accident involving the Tata Ace Vehicle, which entered the main road suddenly

dashed against the Apache motorcycle, which was proceeding towards

Chennai; considering the nature of injuries to pillion rider of the two wheeler

namely, P.W.7 Karthik; and rider of the bike, the deceased victim, who died

because of head injury as also did not wear helmet; and considering the fact

that the accused was present in the accident spot and did not flee the scene;

considering his age then and now; and his family position; taking into account

that there is no antecedent; and the present socio economic condition that

currently he is working only as agricultural laborer; while confirming the

conviction as imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate

Court, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed for the offence under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code as the period which the petitioner has

already undergone. The fine amounts imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

02.12.2021

Index : yes/no Speaking order grs

To

1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tindivanam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4.The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2014

02.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis