Madras High Court
Ramesh vs The State Rep.By on 27 October, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
Ramesh ....Petitioner
.. Vs ..
The State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Arani Town Police Station,
Arani.
Tiruvannamalai District.
[Crime No.120/2007] ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by Sessions Court at Tiruvannamalai dated 11.02.2014 made in
C.A.No.1/2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by Judicial Magistrate, Arani dated 22.12.2009 made in
C.C.No.334 of 2007 and acquit the petitioner.
For petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel,
Legal-Aid-Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)
1/1
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
ORDER
The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The respondent-police, after investigation in Crime No.120 of
2007, filed the final report against the accused for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304 I.P.C. After observing the formalities, the case
was numbered as C.C.No.334/2007. After observing the legal
formalities, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10, and marked
Exs.P1 to P8 and no material object was marked. The trial Court, based
upon the evidence let in, came to the conclusion and found the
accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C.
Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine Rs.1000/-, in
default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days under Section
279 I.P.C and also convicted him and sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in
default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months under
Section 304-A I.P.C.
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1
to P.W.10, and marked Exs.P1 to 8 and no material object was marked
and no one was examined on the defence side and no exhibits were
marked.
4. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the
charges under Section 279 and 380 I.P.C, against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused as detailed
by its judgment dated 22.12.2009.
5. On appeal, in Crl.A.No.1/2010 the learned Session Judge
confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence this revision is filed
by the accused.
6. Heard the learned Legal-Aid-Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent.
7. The case of the prosecution is that On 10.07.2007, the
deceased Senthil Kumar went to the Rice Mill on the previous night, he
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
asked him to go and get the deceased from the Rice Mill, the witness
Dharmalingam, went to the Rice Mill and both are them proceeded
towards the Chetpet-Arani Road on the North side of the road in two
vehicles. The deceased drove his vehicle first then the witness
Dharmalingam followed him while so, they where near the Subashkhan
street. On the opposite side a lorry was driven by its driver by over
speed and claimed the speed breaker at the time due to over speed
the door of the cabin opened and hit the forehead of the deceased
Senthil Kumar so, the senthilkumar fell down on the left side and
sustained injuries on his skull lower jaw, forehead, and all over face.
The accused alone drove the vehicle at the time of the accident then
after the accident the accused get down the lorry and ran away from
the spot. Hence, the accused is liable to be punish for the offences
under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. Hence, the charge.
8. The accused is charged for the offences under Sections 279
and 304 I.P.C. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and Exhibits
P1 to P8 were marked and on one was examined on the defence side
and no exhibits were marked.
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
9. P.W.1 Dharmalingam is the brother of the deceased
Senthilkumar. So, it was told by their father that the deceased
Senthilkumar went to their Rice Mill on the previous night of
10.07.2007. So, he asked him to go and get the deceased from the
Rice Mill. Hence, P.W.1 went to the Rice Mill and both of them
proceeded towards the Chetpet-Arani Road on the North side of the
road in two vehicles. The deceased drove his vehicle first. Then P.W.1
followed him. While so, when they were nearing Subashkhan Street, on
the opposite side, a lorry, driven by its driver by over speed, rammed
the speed breaker and at the time due to over speed, the door of the
cabin opened and hit the forehead of the deceased Senthil Kumar.
10. P.W.7 Motor Vehicle Inspector had issued Ex.P4 stating that
the offending vehicle was having Registration No.TN 25 D 5805 and
issued Ex.P5 report. It is seen that the accident has not taken place
due to any mechanical defect as per the version of P.W.1. The vehicle
was driven by the accused and hence the accused is a driver of the
lorry having Registration No D.A.I 0533 and after the accident, the
Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.7 under Ex.P4 report stated that the
accident has not occurred that due to any mechanical defect.
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
11. The victim initially sustained injury on the left forehead and
P.W.6 Doctor Elangovan who had conducted Post-Mortem, issued
Ex.P5 report stating that the deceased died due to the injuries
sustained in motor vehicle accident. Thus, this Court finds that, on
the date of the accident, the accused drove the lorry and sustained
injury and due to the injuries in the motor vehicles accident, he
succumbed to the injuries and the accident has not taken place due to
any mechanical defect.
12. Now, the point for consideration is as to whether the
accused had drove the vehicle in a rash and manner and it satisfies the
ingredients of the charge under Section 304 of I.P.C.
13. From the evidence of P.W.1, the occurrence witness, it is
seen that while P.W.1 was riding two wheeler, the deceased was
driving as a pillion rider in the opposite direction and the horn was
given by the accused and without noticing, the speed breaker in front,
he caused the accident and in the process, the cabin door on the
driver side opened and the deceased sustained injury on the forehead.
Subsequently, he fell down and died on the spot. Hence from the
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
description of the manner of the accident as spoken to by P.W.1, I find
that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the accused who
has driven the vehicle and charge framed under Section 304A I.P.C
because he died. When that being the case, the charge under Section
304 I.P.C is made out.
14. In this view of the matter, I find that the prosecution has
failed to prove by letting in positive evidence to show that the revision
petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in the above said manner and
hence in the absence of any positive evidence to prove the charge
beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt accused has to be given to
the accused and both the charges under Sections 229 and 304A I.P.C.
are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. He
is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond, if any shall stand cancelled.
The fine amount, if paid by him, shall be refunded.
27.10.2021
nvi
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
1. The Sessions Court at Tiruvannamalai
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Arani.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Arani Town Police Station,
Arani.Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nvi
order in
Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2014
27.10.2021
