Ramaraj vs State By Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 24298 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 10.12.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                    Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016
                  Ramaraj
                                                                                           ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                  State by Inspector of Police,
                  Vellore North police station (L&O)
                  Vellore District.
                  (Crime No.470 of 2006)
                                                                                       ... Respondent

                           Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the
                  judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore
                  District dated 20.07.2016 and made in C.A.No.53 of 2014 confirming the
                  conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
                  Vellore, Vellore District by judgment dated 10.06.2014 and made in
                  C.C.No.10 of 2008.


                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Krishnamurthy
                                   For Respondent       : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.side)

                                                            *****



                 1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016



                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been preferred challenging the

judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge dated

20.07.2016 made in C.A.No.53 of 2015 confirming the judgment of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore dated 10.06.2014 in C.C.No.10 of

2008.

2. The case has arisen out of an accident occurred at Vellore bus stand.

As per the case of the prosecution on 28.06.2006 at about 7.30.p.m, when the

passengers were waiting for getting into the bus, the first accused, who is not

an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Corporation, driven the bus bearing

Registration No.TN2 N 1675 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the

death of three persons and caused injuries to three persons.

3. On the complaint-statement given by PW1/Vijayakumar, PW18-

Manikandan, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.470 of

2006 of Vellore North (L & O) police station under Section 279, 338(2

counts), 337, 304A(3 counts) IPC and prepared the FIR. He conducted the

inquest on the body of the deceased Balu and prepared inquest report.

Thereafter, PW16-Ayyavu, Inspector of Police took up the investigation. He

went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar(Ex.P2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

and rough sketch (Ex.P16). He examined the witnesses and recorded their

statements. He conducted the inquest on the bodies of the deceased

Sathyakavi and Dhanalakshmi and prepared inquest reports. Thereafter, the

bodies were sent for postmortem. On the same day, he arrested the accused at

1.30.p.m and recorded his confession statement and thereafter, PW19

continued the investigation. He enquired rest of the witnesses and the doctor

who conducted postmortem and got postmortem certificates. He obtained

Motor Vehicle Inspector report also after examining the Motor Vehicle

Inspector. After completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the

first accused for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338(2 counts) and

304A(3 counts) IPC and against the second and third accused for the offence

under Sections 337, 338(2 counts) and 304A(3 counts) IPC. After the case

was taken on file and after completing the legal mandates, when the accused

were questioned, they pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Hence, the

trial was conducted.

4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses

have been examined as PW1 to PW19 and 21 documents were marked as

Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the defence, no witness has been examined.

However, one document has been marked as Ex.D1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

5. After completing the trial and after considering the materials available

on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted A2 and A3 and found the first

accused guilty for the offence under Sections 279,337, 338(2 counts) and

304A (3 counts) IPC and convicted and sentenced him as under:-

Offence under Punishment Imposed on the accused Sections 279 IPC To pay a fine of Rs.500/-

338 IPC (2 counts) To pay a fine of Rs.750/- for each count 337 IPC To pay a fine of Rs.500/-

304(A) IPC To undergo one year Rigorous (3 counts) Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- for each count of the offence, in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of two months for each offence

6. Aggrieved over that, he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.53 of 2014 and

the same was also dismissed on 20.07.2016. Challenging the said judgment,

the present revision case has been filed by the accused.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and perused

the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

8. Point for consideration:

Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338(2 counts) and 304A(3 counts) IPC by the learned Sessions Judge based on the materials available on record is fair and proper?

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the rash

and negligence on the part of the accused was not proved; it is also not proved

before the trial Court that it was the accused, who had acted as driver at the

relevant point of time; without proving the rash and negligent driving, a person

cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. He cited the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1968 AIR 829 (Suleman

Rehiman Mulani & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra) in support of his

above contentions.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent submitted that the accused who was the brother of third accused

had gone to the driver seat and started the bus and hit against the persons

randomly and in which three persons got injured and three died; the act of the

accused speaks for itself and the Courts are right in convicting the accused for

the offence under Section 304(A) IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

11. This is a strange case, in which the bus belonging to State Transport

Corporation was not driven by its driver at the time of accident. There is no

dispute about the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was the bus

belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and it was parked in the

Vellore Bus stand. The injured and the deceased were the passengers, who

were waiting in the bus stand.

12. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the defence that the

prosecution has not established the relationship between the third accused and

the first accused. He invited the attention of this Court to the letter written by

the Investigation Officer (Ex.D1) in which, the accused has been shown as a

passenger of the bus. It is to be noted that the second and third accused were

the driver and the conductor of the bus. What has to be actually found is

whether it was the accused, who had handled the bus and whether the accident

has been caused due to his negligence.

13. PWs1 to 3 were not only the injured witnesses, but they are the eye-

witnesses. Their evidence would reveal that while they were standing in the

bus stand, the vehicle, which was handled by the accused, was hit against the

persons, who were waiting for the bus. The learned trial Judge believed the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

ocular account of the eye witnesses, who also got injured in the accident. PW2

is the witness, who not only got injured but also lost his child in the accident.

PW3 has lost his son and daughter-in-law in the occurrence. PW5, who was

working as a Security in the bus stand deposed that immediately after the

occurrence, the accused was secured by the public and handed over to the

security. I find no reason to reject the evidence of the above witnesses, in the

absence of any motive they had against this accused.

14. This is a kind of a case in which the prosecution need not establish

the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Because the accused is a

stranger to the bus and the audacity or curiosity he had to handle the bus

caused this accident. He is not a professional driver. The very act of the

accused to get into the bus for starting it, is an act of negligence. Hence, there

is no force in the argument that the prosecution did not establish the rash and

negligent driving of the accused. The accused was seen by the injured witness

and he was secured by the public and caught red handed and handed over to

PW5-Security. The accused was not authorised to handle the bus. He was

seen alighting down hurriedly from the driver seat by some passengers. Since

the evidence of witnesses could infuse the confidence of the Court, the Trial

Court had chosen to accept the same and it was upheld by the Appellate Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

The accused, who does not know driving, out of curiosity got into the driver

seat and started the bus. That would naturally go directionless and hit against

innocent people, who would be waiting in the bus stand for various reasons. It

is a very sad incident in which three lives were lost and three people got

injured. It has been already observed that PWs 2 and 3 are not injured, but

they had also lost the kiths and kins in the accident.

15. Since the evidence available on record is concrete and clear and

proves the guilt of the accused, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment

of the Courts below. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that some indulgence may be shown in the quantum of sentence. It is seen that

the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC (3

counts) and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of One Year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each

count. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has paid the fine amount in its entirety.

16. In my opinion, the act of the accused is not only negligent but also

mischievous. The punishment imposed by the Courts below sufficiently

deterrent and in my view the accused does not deserve any reduction in the

punishment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The

judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore

District dated 20.07.2016 and made in C.A.No.53 of 2014 is hereby

confirmed.

10.12.2021

Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmi

To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore.

3.The Inspector of Police, Vellore North police station (L&O) Vellore District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai-600 104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

R.N.MANJULA, J

kmi

Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2016

10.12.2021

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