Madras High Court
Vinoth vs State on 14 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
Vinoth ... Petitioner
Vs
State
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.543 of 2010). ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401
of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and conviction dated 01.10.2014 on the file
of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam in
C.C.No.213 of 2010 and confirmed by the 1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in his judgment dated 07.06.2016 in
C.A.No.155 of 2014.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramkumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, dated 07.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.155 of 2014, confirming the
conviction and sentence, passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Mettupalayam in C.C.No.213 of 2010, dated 01.10.2014.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.03.2010 at about 22.00
Hrs., near Rohini Hotel at Mettupalayam-Udhgai Main Road, the
petitioner/accused had driven his lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 13 G 7633 from
East to North East in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the cycle
ridden by the deceased in the same direction from behind. On the complaint
given by PW1, a case was registered by PW9 in Crime No.543 of 2010 of
Mettupalayam Police Station under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The
FIR has been prepared and marked as Ex.A5. PW10, Mr.Mani, Inspector of
Police, took up the case for investigation and went to the place of
occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and sent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
the body of the deceased for post-mortem. After completing the post-
mortem, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. He also
examined the Doctor and got post-mortem certificate and arrested the
petitioner/accused on 17.03.2010 and sent him for remand. The vehicle
involved in the accident was sent for inspection to the motor vehicle
inspector. After completion of inspection, he filed the Charge Sheet against
the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. When the accused was
questioned, he denied his involvement in the offences.
3. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 10
witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW10 and 7 documents were
marked as Exhibits P1 to P7. On the side of the defence, no witness was
examined and no documents were marked.
4. After conclusion of the trial and on considering the materials
available on record, the learned trial Judge has found the accused guilty for
the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and convicted and
sentenced him by imposing Simple Imprisonment for three months and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment
for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced
by imposing Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the
offence under Section 304(A) IPC.
5. The Appeal preferred by the accused before the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.155 of 2014 was also dismissed on
07.06.2016. Aggrieved by that, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed
before this Court by the accused.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
7. Point for consideration:
''Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused
for the offences Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC by the
learned Sessions Judge basing on the materials available on
record, is fair and proper?''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the
evidence of eye witnesses namely PW1 to PW3, are contrary to each other
and it causes doubt in the case of the prosecution; the Doctor, who
conducted post-mortem, has not produced viscera report and sent it for
chemical examination, the deceased had drunk and rode the cycle and then
invited the accident; there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the
lorry; the evidence of Motor vehicle Inspector-PW7 also shows that there
was no damage to the lorry involved in the accident; the Courts below have
omitted to give doubt to the accused and hence this Revision Case may be
allowed.
9. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that, normally three of the eye witnesses had seen the
occurrence at a very short distance from Rohini Hotel and the lorry had hit
the cycle from behind; so, there cannot be any negligence on the part of the
cyclist and hence, this Revision Case has to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
10. The case has been registered based on the complaint given by
PW1, who is the witness for the occurrence. The presence of PW1 in the
place of occurrence is incidental to his taking dinner at the hotel nearby to
the place of occurrence. There is no mistake as to the identity of the place of
occurrence. PW1 was an Auto driver, and he went to the hotel near the place
of occurrence to have his dinner. After taking dinner, when he was about to
come out of the hotel, he witnessed the accident. Even the cross-
examination of PW1 also confirms that he came out of the hotel and saw the
accident. PW1 took the deceased to the hospital. The evidence of PW2 and
PW3 also corroborated the evidence of PW1 on these material aspects. They
were present at the place of occurrence, since they also went to Rohini Hotel
for taking dinner. Their evidence reveal that the lorry had hit the cycle from
behind. Since the lorry is bigger than the cycle and the cycle does not have
any motor engine, there cannot be any rash or negligent driving by the
cyclist. It is witnessed by the witnesses that the lorry had gone on the road
in zig-zag manner. The cyclist who was going straight got hit by the lorry
from behind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
11. It can be argued that the cycle was going zig-zag and that is why
the lorry also went in a similar manner. In that case, any prudent driver of a
big heavy vehicle like the lorry would halt the vehicle by applying break.
No one will follow a cyclist in a zig-zag manner. So it makes clear that the
lorry driver lost his control and hit on the cyclist.
12. The cross-examination of the Investigating Officer also did not
reveal anything contrary to the case of the prosecution. The Doctor, who
examined the deceased immediately after he was brought to the hospital
had not opined that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the
time of his death. Since there is no sign of alcohol or its smell on the body
of the deceased, the non-examination of viscera is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. According to the evidence of PW6, the deceased is an
ice-cream seller, and he is known to PW6. The deceased being an ice cream
vendor, after finishing his sales, he took his bicycle to go back home. The
lorry driver ought to have noticed the cyclist who was proceeding in front of
the lorry, and maintained a safe distance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
13. The evidence of eye witnesses about the manner in which the
accident had taken place and the features of the spot as shown in the Rough
Sketch and all other supporting materials, would only establish that the
negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry only.
14. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have appreciated the
evidence in the right perspective and found the petitioner/accused guilty.
Hence, the judgment of the appellate Court does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner/accused was 32 years at the time of occurrence and he did not
have any adverse driving records prior to the accident and hence, he prayed
that some indulgence should be shown in the quantum of sentence.
16. The prosecution also did not claim that the accused had caused
some other accidents previously. Taking into considerations the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner and all other attending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
circumstances, I feel that the punishment for the offence can be reduced
from one year to three months Simple Imprisonment and the point is
answered accordingly.
17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and
the point framed by this Court is answered as below:
(i) The judgment of the First Appellate Court is modified to the effect
that the sentence of Simple Imprisonment is reduced to three months for the
offence under Section 304(A) of IPC.
(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused
for the offence under Section 279 IPC are confirmed.
(iii) The sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused shall run
concurrently. The sentences of imprisonment already undergone by him
shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
(iv) If the petitioner/accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to
issue Non-Bailable Warrant for securing him to undergo the remaining
sentence, if any.
14.12.2021
Index:Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking Order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
To
1. The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Mettupalayam.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
ssn
Crl.R.C.No.1641 of 2016
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
