Madras High Court
Suresh vs State on 29 November, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs
State
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station,
(Crime No.93 of 2009). ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C., against order in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2016, on the file of III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vriddhachalam, dated
07.10.2016, which confirmed the judgment and the sentence passed in
C.C.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate at Neyveli, dated 24.11.2015.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Surya Narayanan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, dated 07.10.2016 in Crl.A.No.39 of 2016, which confirmed
the judgment passed in C.C.No.87 of 2009 by the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate dated 24.11.2015.
2. The short facts of the case are as under:
On 27.03.2009, at about 8.15 a.m., a child, aged 3 years, by name
Aakash, who was the son of PW1 was answering his nature's call, close to
the fence located in front of his house at First Main Road, Block No.28. At
that time, the accused drove his LMV Maruthi Van bearing Reg.No.TN31
AZ 2345 in a rash and negligent manner, without any horn and dashed
against the child and as a result of which, the child got injured. Later, the
child succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a complaint was given by PW1,
who is the father of the child, and on the basis of the said complaint, a case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
was registered in Crime No.93 of 2009 by Neyveli Police under Sections
279 and 304-A IPC and FIR, Ex.P5 was prepared. After registration of FIR,
PW9-Karunanithi took up the investigation and went to the place of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. He
conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased at Neyveli Government
General Hospital and prepared the inquest report. He also conducted the
post mortem on the body of the deceased. He sent the vehicle involved in
the accident to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. After examining all the
witnesses and after obtaining necessary certificates and completing the
investigation-PW9, he filed the final report against the accused for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
3. After the case was taken on file and complying all the legal
mandates, the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating
materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. The
accused denied the involvement in the offence.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW9 and 8 documents were
marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. On the side of the defence, no witness was
examined and no documents were marked.
5. After conclusion of the trial and on considering the materials on
record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and convicted him under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C., and convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of
two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279
of IPC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, in the event of failure
to pay the fine amount, the accused shall undergo one month simple
imprisonment for each default and the period of detention undergone by the
accused, if any, shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
6. The First Appeal preferred by the appellant in Crl.A.No.39 of 2016
was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
Magistrate. Aggrieved over the said dismissal order passed by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, the accused has
preferred this revision before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
8. Point for consideration:
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused
for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the
learned Sessions Judge basing on the materials available on
record is fair and proper?
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house of
the accused is opposite to the house of the victim child and he was about to
park his car in the car shed; at that time, the child crossed the vehicle and
only in view of that the vehicle hit the child; he further stated that the
Courts below have not properly appreciated the contradictions and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
materials and wrongly found the accused guilty for the offence under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
10. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the child was made to sit for attending his nature's
call and he was sitting just on the edge of the street and the accused drove
his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the
Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found the
accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. It is seen that the
innocent child, who was sitting at the near fence of his house for attending
his natures call, died in the accident cause by the accused.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this
Court to the evidence of PW1 wherein he had stated that after leaving the
child himself, his wife and his brothers were standing in front of his house.
At that time, the car of the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and
hit against the child and caused the accident. From the evidence of PW2,
who is the brother of PW1, it is found that after leaving the child, his sister-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
in-law went inside the house. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed
that there are contradictions in evidence of PW1 and PW2; despite with
regard to the presence of PW1 and PW2 in the place of occurrence at the
time of accident; PW2 has stated that the child was made to sit and the car
of the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the
child. When child was made to sit for his practical purposes, it is less likely
that the child would get up and run on the road in front of the vehicle. When
the children are taken to the streets for answering their natural calls,
normally their care-takers would seat them on the edge of the street and not
on the middle of the street or road. The accused, who is residing at the
opposite house of the child, could have come in a careful manner in order to
avoid hitting on the children sitting on the edge of the street.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while halting
the vehicle, the accused would not have driven the vehicle in a high speed.
It is not necessary to drive the vehicle in a high speed while parking. But,
accidents can occur if the car drivers do not exercise caution to see whether
any one was present in front or backside of the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
13. Had he noticed the child sitting on the edge of the street, he would
not have taken the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the child.
The parents of the child would have been in utter shock and it is quite
possible that they would give conflicting facts in that poignant state of
mind. PW2 who is the brother of PW1 has stated that the accused had
driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the child.
14. I do not find any reason to reject the evidence of PW2, who had
witnessed the occurrence and especially when PW2 or his family does not
have any motive against the accused to falsely implicate him in this case.
The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence of the eye witnesses
and the features of the place of occurrence and found the accused of guilty
for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.
15. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
considering the family situation of the accused, the punishment should be
modified to that of fine alone. But the offences committed under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
304-A IPC, where valuable lives are lost cannot be taken to lightly for the
purpose of sentencing. Hence, the accused cannot be imposed with fine
alone. However, the family situation of the petitioner can be considered in
order to reduce the sentence.
16. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and
the judgment of the First Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the
sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is
reduced from one year Simple Imprisonment to three months Simple
Imprisonment and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to
Rs.10,000/-.
29.11.2021
Index:Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking Order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
ssn
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore at Vriddhachalam.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Neyveli.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Thermal Police Station.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
Crl.R.C.No.1460 of 2016
29.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
