Madras High Court
D.Saranraj ... Revision vs State Represented By Its on 8 July, 2021
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.469 of 2021
D.Saranraj ... Revision Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.630 of 2013) ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2019 by
judgment dated 20.11.2020 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai District, confirming the order passed in
C.C.No.47 of 2017 dated 31.01.2019 on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the
judgment, dated 20.11.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2019 on
the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai
District, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
31.01.2019, passed in C.C.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner
in Crime No.630 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and
304-A IPC. After investigation, they filed a charge-sheet before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Judicial
Magistrate had taken the charge-sheet on file in P.R.C.No.66 of 2014 and
made over the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial,
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as follows :
Provision under Sentence
which convicted
Section 279 IPC Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo
six weeks simple imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
Section 337 IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo
four weeks simple imprisonment
Section 304-A IPC Simple Imprisonment for two years
3.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Court,
Tiruvannamalai, in Crl.A.No.14 of 2019. The learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side
and considering the materials on record, dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.
4.Again, challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the
accused/petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there
is no eye-witness in this case. He would submit that P.W.1 is not an eye-
witness, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not a trustworthy one and
the conviction cannot be based on the evidence of P.W.1. Both the
Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1, who has clearly
stated during the cross-examination that he came only after ten minutes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
from the time of the accident, and therefore, he cannot be an eye-witness
and he is only a hear-say evidence. The learned counsel would further
submit that, P.W.2 has stated that, immediately soon after the accident, she
became unconscious, and she became conscious only when she was taking
treatment in the hospital, and hence, she could not have given the facts for
the complaint. Therefore, in order to get the compensation, they have
fixed the petitioner as the accused. None of the witnesses has spoken
either in the complaint or during the investigation, the name of the
petitioner, and only in the charge-sheet, the respondent police has fixed
the name of the petitioner, and they have not stated based on which
material or from which statement of the witnesses, they have fixed the
petitioner as an accused, and therefore, both the Courts below failed to
appreciate the fact that the petitioner's name was not mentioned either in
the F.I.R. or in any of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is a material contradiction, which goes to the root of
the prosecution case.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that the age of the petitioner is only 26 years, and even assuming he has
committed the offence, it is only an accident and unintentional and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
unexpected and beyond his control. Though the accident is proved to
some extent, it is not proved that it was only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court failed to appreciate the
evidence and afforded two years simple imprisonment to the petitioner,
and unfortunately, the Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the
evidence independently and simple endorsed the view of the trial Court
and the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
However, the learned counsel would plead that, if the judgments are to be
confirmed, some leniency may be shown regarding the quantum of
sentence.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing on
behalf of the respondent, would submit that, P.W.2 is an injured witness.
P.W.2 has clearly narrated the incidents, and further, the date of
occurrence and place of occurrence are not in dispute, and since P.W.2 is
an injured witness, she was present at the time of the occurrence and the
said fact was not challenged by the defence and it was not proved by the
defence that P.W.2 was not present at the time of occurrence. Though the
F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and it is only for information to set the law in
motion, after investigation, P.W.2 identified that the petitioner is the one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
who has committed the offence, and therefore, the respondent police laid
the charge-sheet against the petitioner. All the witnesses have established
the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciated
the evidence and convicted the petitioner and the Appellate Court also re-
appreciated the entire evidence independently and gave a finding that the
accident was proved by the prosecution witnesses and established by the
eye-witness P.W.2, who is also an injured witness in this case, and
therefore, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and
have given the punishment to the petitioner, and there is no merit in the
revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire
materials available on record.
9.The case of the prosecution is as under :
On 06.12.2013, at 12.45 p.m., the deceased Annadurai was
going to Tiruvannamalai from Melnachipattu Village, near Ottakudisal
Arunachala College, in a two-wheeler motor cycle, bearing Registration
No.TVS.50 XL TN-25-AC-8514, along with her daughter and grand
daughter. The accused had driven a Scorpio Car bearing Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
No.TN-21-AW-3228 in a rash and negligent manner in an opposite
direction and had hit upon the two-wheeler motor cycle and caused
grievous injuries on the deceased's head, left shoulder, due to which, he
died on the spot, and also caused simple injury to witness Chennammal,
and thereby, the accused had committed the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.
10.Since this Court is a revision Court, the scope of revision is
very limited. When the Courts below have appreciated the entire evidence
and established that P.W.2 is an eye-witness and also an injured witness,
and came to the conclusion that the accident is proved and recorded a
finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner, and also came to the conclusion that he is found guilty since the
presence of P.W.2 is not denied and P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the
accident, normally, the Court will not re-appreciate the entire evidence,
and the revision Court will not sit in the arm-chair of the Appellate Court
and revisit and re-appreciate the entire evidence, unless the appreciation of
evidence is perverse. Moreover, on a combined reading of the entire
evidence and materials and the judgments of the Courts below, it is seen
that P.W.2 is admittedly an eye-witness and also the injured witness, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
was present at the time of occurrence, therefore, this Court does not find
any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, this
Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the
judgments of the Courts below. Therefore, the conviction is confirmed.
11.However, as far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the
offence is only based on the accident and rash and negligence of the
petitioner, but, the accident was not intentional, and therefore, under these
circumstances, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence from two years
to six months simple imprisonment.
12.With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.Since the accused/petitioner has already undergone the
sentence for more than six months, the petitioner/accused is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with
any other case.
08.07.2021
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
Copy to :
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records to the Courts below,
High Court, Madras. | immediately
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
mkn
Crl. R.C. No.39 of 2021
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
