Madras High Court
Ramakrishna vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
Ramakrishna .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Erode South Police Station.
Crime No.688 of 2007 .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 14.08.2013 made in C.A.No.24
of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge of Erode District at
Erode confirming the judgment and conviction dated 25.03.2013 made in
C.C.No.432 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vignesh
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved
by the judgment in C.C.No.432 of 2007 dated 25.03.2013 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, thereby, convicting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C and imposing a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for a
period of one month and under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and the
judgment dated 14.08.2013 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, thereby, confirming the conviction and
modifying the sentence only in respect of default sentence and confirming the
primary sentence of one month imposed on the petitioner/accused.
2. The charge against the accused is that on 05.08.2007 at about 4.00
P.M, within the limits of Erode South Police Station at Poondurai road,
Nadarmedu, infront of Jyothi salon, when the deceased victim was walking
along with P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused was riding Suzuki Motorcycle bearing
registration No.TDX 7242 from North to South in a high speed and rash and
negligent manner and in a inebriated condition, dashed the victim on the rear
side and caused injuries, resulting in the death of the victim and therefore, the
petitioner/accused was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal
Code and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. Upon being summoned and
questioned, the accused denied the charge and stood trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
3. The prosecution, therefore, examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1
to P10. Upon being questioned about the statement of the witnesses and the
incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
the petitioner/accused denied the same as false evidence. However, no
evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court proceeded to hear
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the
learned Counsel for the accused.
4. The Trial Court found that on the basis of the eye witnesses namely
P.Ws.1 and 2 and the narration of P.W.3, concluded that the petitioner/accused
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the
victim. The Trial Court also considered the fact that the petitioner herin was
neither arrested nor was sent to the medical examination so as to test whether
he was in an inebriated condition and therefore, acquitted the petitioner of the
charge under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. The Trial Court, after
considering other corroborative evidence, including observation mahazar and
the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has established the charge beyond any reasonable doubt and
convicted the accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
and sentenced as aforementioned.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner/accused preferred
Crl.A.No.24 of 2013 and by judgment dated 14.08.2013, the Appellate Court
once again, independently, appraised the evidence and came to the conclusion
that the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed against the
petitioner/accused and since the defence has not made any attempt to draw any
motive to falsely implicate him and considering the manner in which the
accident had happened, confirmed the offence and conclusions reached by the
Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court found that the default sentence can
only be up to ¼ th of the term of imprisonment awarded for the offence and
therefore, it cannot be for a period of two months, while the substantiver
sentence imposed is for a period of one month only and accordingly ordered
the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this revision is laid by the
petitioner/accused.
6. Heard Mr.M.Vignesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused.
7. The learned Counsel, taking this Court through the deposition of the
witnesses, would submit that it is doubtful whether P.Ws.1 and 2 could have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
actually witnessed the accident and also submitted that P.W.2, being wife,
P.W.3, being son and also P.W.1, who is neighbour, all of them are interested
witnesses. Considering the manner of the accident, there would definitely have
been independent witnesses and therefore, the prosecution, having failed to
examine any independent witnesses, the Trial Court and the lower Appellate
Court erred in holding that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond any
reasonable doubt. Alternatively, the learned Counsel also pleaded that when
the accident has happened in the year 2007 and at that time, the
petitioner/accused was 40 years of age and now, 14 years have gone by.
Therefore, the same should also be taken into account, while deciding the
Criminal Revision Case.
8. I have gone through the material evidence on record and the judgments
of the Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court. I have considered the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Trial Court
and the lower Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence of eye witnesses
and have concluded that merely because they are interested witnesses thier
evidence cannot be discarded and have appeared to be natrually witnessed the
accident and upon appreciating the other corroborating evidence, have rendered
the finding of guilt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
9. Under these circumstances, there is no any ground for this Court to
interfere with the finding of the guilt in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
I, therefore, confirm the finding of the guilt by the Trial Court as well as the
lower Appellate Court. As far as the sentence of one month Imprisonment for
the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C is concerned, considering the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, considering the
date of accident, considering the efflux of more than fourteen years of time
between the date of accident and now, considering the age of the
petitioner/accused that now he is aged 54 years and has not involved in any
other offence, I am inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment awarded
by the Trial Court from the period of one month to that of 15 days simple
imprisonment. The fine amount is confirmed.
10. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed as stated above.
10.12.2021
Index : yes/no
Speaking order
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Erode District,
Erode.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Erode South Police Station.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2014
10.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
