Madras High Court
Elangovan vs State By on 21 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
Elangovan
S/o.Amarasan
... Petitioner
Vs.
State by
Inspector of Police,
Thimiri Police Station,
Vellore District.
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.60 of 2014 dated 13.08.2015 on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet confirming the Judgment
made in C.C.No.88 of 2008 dated 10.07.2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Walajapet and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai
for Mr.V.Devendhiran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*****
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet
dated 13.08.2015 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Walaja dated 10.07.2014.
2. This case has arisen out of the road accident. On 05.06.2008 at about
11.30 hours when the de facto complainant/Raman was riding his TVS-50
bearing Registration No.TN 23 V 3899 by having his wife, baby and daughter-
Geetha as pillion riders and coming on Arni-Arcot Road near Prasanna
Welding shop on the left side of the road, a Government bus bearing
Registration No.TN 23 N 1295 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against his TVS-50, in which PW1 and his child Geetha sustained simple
injuries. His wife and baby sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
3. On the complaint given by PW1/Raman, PW10-Inspector of Police
registered a case in Crime No.210 of 2008 under Sections 279, 337(2 counts)
and 304(A) IPC. He took up the case for investigation, visited the place of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5) and Rough Sketch
(Ex.P7) in the presence of the witnesses. He examined the witnesses,
conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and later, sent the body for
conducting postmortem. He also sent the vehicle involved in the accident for
Motor Vehicle Inspection, got the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. He later
arrested the accused and sent him for remand. He also examined the
Doctor/PW6 who treated PWs1 and 3 and obtained wound certificates (Exs.P2
& P3) and after completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against
the accused under Sections 279, 337(2 counts) and 304(A) IPC. After the case
was taken on file, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the
accused, copies were furnished to him. When the accused was questioned, he
pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and hence, trial was conducted.
4. During the course of the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 10
witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW10 and 10 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the defence, no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
5. At the conclusion of trial and considering the materials available on
record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
Sections 337(2 counts) and 304(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced him as
under:-
Offence Punishment
337 (2 counts) IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo
one week Simple Imprisonment
304(A) IPC To undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment
6. The Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused challenging the
judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed on 13.08.2015 in C.A.No.60 of
2014 by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that the
petitioner/accused has preferred this revision.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the
entire materials available on record.
8. Point for consideration:-
Whether the punishment of the accused for the offence under
Sections 337 (2 counts) and 304(A) 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
negligence is not on the part of the petitioner and the rider of the two wheeler
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
did not abide the Rules of the Road. He has further submitted that there are
contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the lower Court omitted to
take them into consideration and acquit the petitioner.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the eye-witnesses and the evidence of the
Investigation Officer will prove that the negligence is not on the part of the
complainant and it is correct for the Courts below to convict the accused for
the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC.
11. The fact that the wife of PW1 died in the accident was not disputed.
The accused, who is an employee of State Transport Corporation, had handled
was driven the bus Route No.7J and driven the bus bearing Registration
No.TN 23 N 1295 from Arni towards Arcot. At that time, PW1 was riding his
TVS-50 by having his wife and children as pillion riders. TVS-50 was also
going from Arni and towards Arcot. The Government Bus driven by the
accused was following TVS-50 in the same direction. According to the
evidence of PW1, the Government Bus, which was going behind TVS-50, hit
against the TVS-50 and because of the impact, PW1 and his daughter fell
down on the left side of the road and his wife Baby fell down on the right side
of the road and the back tyre of bus ran over his wife and because of that, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
died. The road in which the accident had taken place was a single road, in
which one bus alone can run at a time. The accident had not taken place while
any other vehicle was overtaking the bus. When the bus was following the
two wheeler, it would have been very much visible to the eyes of the bus
driver. Had the driver been vigilant and maintained some distance, he would
not have hit against the two wheeler.
12. It is not the case of the defence that the two wheeler was riding on
the wrong side of the road or the rider of the two wheeler suddenly crossed the
road and invited the accident. Due to the accident, PW1 and his daughter
were thrown on the left side of the road only. When PWs1 and 2 went to the
Doctor for taking treatment, they had narrated the above incident in the similar
manner in which it was stated in the complaint. Had the bus driver given a
horn at a reasonable distance, then at least the two wheeler driver would have
got chance to move away, when the bus was impending. But it seems that the
driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the
two wheeler. Sadly, the wife of PW1 was thrown on the right side of the road
and she got fixed under the bus and the back tyre of the bus ran over her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
13. PW5, who had also witnessed the accident, rushed to the spot and
helped the injured to be taken to the hospital. The Doctor, who had treated the
injured, has seen the injuries on their body and she has stated that such kind of
injuries can occur due to the alleged accident. Since the bus driver had
omitted to adhere to the necessary precaution while going near the two
wheeler which was running just in front of the bus, the accident had occurred.
The manner in which the accident had occurred and the place where the
injured and the deceased were thrown away would show that the negligent is
on the part of the bus driver only. The defence did not establish any other
possibility for the accident than the case of the prosecution. The Courts below
have rightly appreciated the entire evidence available on record and rightly
convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 337 (2 counts) and
304(A) IPC. Hence, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the
judgments of the Courts below. However, the learned counsel for the defence
submitted that some indulgence may be shown in the matter of punishment.
He has submitted that the accused, being the driver of the State Transport
Corporation, has not caused any other accident other than this unfortunate
one. The accused seems to have served at least 10 years of service prior to the
accident and during his service, there was no accident is reported. Even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
subsequent to this occurrence, he has not involved in any other accident. It is
also seen from the evidence of some of the witnesses that there were some
potholes on the road. Being the driver of the same route, the accused would
have been aware of the condition of the road and he ought to have taken the
necessary precautions while driving the bus in the particular place of this
route. Taking into consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and also the single episode of accident in the entire career of the
accused, I feel that some consideration may be shown in the punishment.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision is Partly allowed. The
judgment dated 13.08.2015 made in C.A.No.60 of 2014 on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet is hereby modified to the
effect that the petitioner/accused shall undergo 3 months Simple
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section
304(A) IPC. Rest of the punishment imposed for the rest of offence for which
the accused was found guilty and convicted, shall remain unaltered and the
sentence will run concurrently.
21.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranipet.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Walaja.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thimiri Police Station,
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.1152 of 2015
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
