Madras High Court
Mathiyazhagan vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.344 of 2020
Mathiyazhagan : Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Wing-Thanjavur,
Thanjavur.
(Crime No.158 of 2015) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order,
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur,
dated 10.01.2020 in CA No.94 of 2019, thereby modifying the
sentence into 3 months Simple Imprisonment from 2 years and
confirmed the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the
petitioner, by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Thanjavur, made
in CC No.138 of 2015, dated 27.06.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sekar
for Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Standing Counsel for
State Government (Crl. side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated
10.01.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur, in CA No.94 of 2019, modifying the sentence to 3
months Simple Imprisonment from 2 years and confirmed the fine
amount of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the petitioner, by the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.III, Thanjavur, dated 27.06.2019, made in CC
No.138 of 2015.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 21.09.2015 at 8.30
am, at Thanjavur Yagappa Nagar, near LIC Soundar Rajan house,
when the boy Ragulraj was riding his bicycle, the driver of the
Tipper Lorry TN-49-AD-8121 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the bicycle. In that process, the boy Ragulraj
sustained injuries and subsequently, he died in the hospital, on
21.09.20215. The Inspector of Police, attached to Traffic Wing-
Thanjavur, filed a final report under section 304(A) IPC against the
accused examining the witnesses.
3.In the trial court, 6 witnesses were examined and 8
Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. The trial court
convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section
304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Simple
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer 1 month
Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in
C.A No.94 of 2019, which was heard by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The First Appellate Court modified the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court into 3
month SI. Hence, this criminal revision.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the
ingredients required for the offence with which he stood charged
and convicted him for the said offence and none of the witnesses
have spoken that the accused has driven the vehicle either rashly or
negligently and there is no specific allegation of negligence as
against the accused in driving the vehicle and the eye witnesses are
interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to
acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/accused submitted that when there was no evidence for
rash and negligent driving, the accused is entitled to the benefit of
acquittal. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/accused submitted the following decisions:-
(1)2014(1)MLJ (Crl.) 301 (Vetrivelan
Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai);
(2)2013(4) MLJ (Crl) 619
(R.Nandakumar Vs. State rep. by Inspector of
Police, Pollachi);
(3)2011(4)MLJ (Crl) 50 (Magesh Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Gudivatham
Taluk Police Station);
(4)Unreported decision of this Court,
dated 08.02.2021 made in Crl.RC(MD)No.629
of 2016 ( Maheshwaran Vs. State rep. by its
Inspector of Police);
(5)1998(8)SCC 498 (State of
Karnataka Vs. Sathish);
(6)Unreported decision of this Court,
dated 03.01.2011 made in Crl.RC(MD)No.
1242 of 2007 (Nachimuthu Vs. State by the
Inspector of Police); and
(7)2011(3) MLJ (Crl) 983 (V.Manju
Vs. State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police).
6.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
appellate court, after proper appreciation of the facts, passed
proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this
court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that
the criminal revision may be dismissed.
7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8.PW1 is the father of the deceased and he gave Ex.P1
complaint. PW1 is not the eye witness. PW1 in his complaint and
evidence stated that on 21.09.2015 at 8.00 am, his son proceeded
in his bicycle and when he proceeded in front of the house of
Soundar Rajan, at that time, the accused drove his vehicle and
came to the wrong side and dashed against his son's bicycle and
due to it, his son has sustained multiple injuries and thereafter, he
admitted his son in the hospital and on the same day, his son died.
Hence the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents found
in the complaint.
9.PW3 is the eye witness, who saw the occurrence. PW3
stated during his evidence that on 21.09.2015 at about 8.30 am,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
when he was proceeding to Yagappa Nagar, at that time, the
deceased boy travelled in his bicycle, proceeding from west to east
and at that time, the accused drove his vehicle to the wrong side
and dashed against the deceased and due to it, the deceased
sustained injuries and the injured was taken to KMC Hospital,
Trichy, but he died.
10.In this case, the rough sketch was produced and it was
marked as Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P5, it reveals that the deceased
proceeded from west to east in his bicycle on the left side of the
road, but the accused went to the wrong side and dashed against
the deceased. Hence, from the evidence of PW3 and Ex.P5, it
reveals that the accused only went to the wrong side and dashed
against the deceased. Therefore, it shows the rash and negligent
driving of the accused.
11.In this case, the owner of the offending vehicle was
examined as PW6. PW6 stated that the accused told him that he
parked his lorry near the house of one Soundar Rajan, at that time,
the deceased proceeded in his bicycle from west to east and at that
time, one car came in the opposite direction and dashed against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
deceased and the deceased fell down on the back side of the tyre.
It is to be noted that no complaint was given to the effect that only
the Car dashed against the deceased and only due to it, the
deceased sustained injuries. Further, in respect of the accident, a
criminal case was registered only as against accused. It is to be
noted here that the accused has not given any complaint to the
police stating that only due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased, the accident occurred. Further, he has not sent any
petition to the superior police officials, objecting registration of the
FIR against him. From the evidence of PW3 and Ex.P5, it reveals
that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the accused. Hence, it is held that the accused drove his
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby caused the
accident and accordingly, it is not necessary to interfere with the
finding of the first appellate court.
121.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same
is dismissed.
19.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/
litigant concerned.
To,
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Thanjavur,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Judgment made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.344 of 2020
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
