Madras High Court
Muthumari vs State Through on 1 September, 2021
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.619 of 2017
Muthumari : Petitioner/Petitioner/
Accused (sole)
Vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai Taluk Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.14/2010) : Respondent/Respondent
Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the judgment, dated 14.07.2017 in C.A.No.100/2016 on the
file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai confirming the
conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.71/2010, dated 09.12.2016 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sivagangai and set aside the
same by allowing this Revision and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Counsel for Government of
Tamil Nadu (Crl.side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to check the
correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Sivagangai in C.A.No.100/2016, dated 14.07.2017, wherein, the
judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sivagangai in
C.C.No.71/2010, dated 09.12.2016 was confirmed.
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the above referred
case. Before the trial Court, the respondent police filed a final report
alleging that the appellant committed an offence under Section 304(A) of
IPC.
3. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Judge found the
revision petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and
accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.100/2016 before the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. The learned District and Sessions
Judge, Sivagangai by judgment, dated 14.07.2017 affirmed the findings
arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court with the present Criminal Revision Case.
5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) The deceased Rahul is a student studied in Nehruji Central
Higher Secondary School, situated at Melur. On 17.08.2010 around 09.15
a.m., when the deceased Rahul and other children, who are studying in the
same school, while walking to get into the class room, the revision
petitioner herein, being the driver, without seeing the children, who are
walking on the backside of the van, drove the van bearing Registration
No.TN 63 L 1812 in a rash and negligent manner, in the reverse gear and
dashed against the deceased.
(ii) The said incident was witnessed by P.W.4-Balammal and one
Kanchana and informed to the Principal. P.W.3-Angayarkanni, who is the
Principal of Nehruji Central Higher Secondary School, after got
information, informed the same to P.W.1-Sagunthala, who is the mother of
the deceased Rahul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
(iii) Upon receipt of information, P.W.1 went to the occurrence
place and after seeing the dead body of her son, lodged the complaint before
the police under Ex.P1.
(iv) P.W.6-Balaji, the then Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk
Police Station, on 17.08.2010, while he was on duty, around 10.30 a.m.,
received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case against the revision
petitioner in Crime No.141/2010 under Section 304 (A) of IPC. The printed
FIR was marked as Ex.P3. Immediately, after the registration of the case, he
rushed to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, he
prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P4. He drawn the Rough Sketch
and the same has been marked as Ex.P5. He examined the witnesses and
recorded their statements.
(v) He held inquest and prepared an inquest report under Ex.P6.
In continuation of investigation, after the preparation of the inquest, he
submitted a requisition to the Doctor attached with Government Hospital,
Sivagangai requesting to conduct an autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased Rahul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
(vi) Upon the receipt of the requisition given by P.W.6, P.W.5-
Dr.Kiruthika, on 17.08.2010 around 01.40 a.m., conducted an autopsy and
issued a postmortem certificate under Ex.P2 with opinion that the deceased
would appear to have been died due to the multiple injuries sustained in the
road accident.
(vii) In continuation of investigation, P.W.6 sent a requisition to
the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspecting the offending vehicle. In turn,
the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sivagangai, examined the offending vehicle
and issued a certificate as the occurrence had not happened due to the
mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. The said certificate was marked
as Ex.P7. After receipt of the report from the doctor and the Motor Vehicle
Inspector, he came to the positive conclusion that the revision petitioner is
liable to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of
IPC. He filed a final report accordingly.
6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court examined the
accused in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C., for which, the accused pleaded
not guilty. Hence, in order to prove their case, on the side of the
prosecution, 7 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 8
documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
(i) Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.1-Sagunthala, who is the
mother of deceased, speaks about the receipt of information from the School
in respect to the death of her son and about the lodging of a complaint.
(ii) P.W.2-Revathi is the sister of P.W.1. She has given evidence
in support of the evidence given by P.W.1.
(iii) P.W.3-Angayarkanni, who was the Principal in the School,
claims that the witnesses P.W.4-Balammal and Kanchana, who are the staffs
working in the school, reported that the accused negligently drove the
vehicle and due to the same, back wheel of the bus was ran over on the head
of the deceased.
(iv) P.W.4-Balammal the alleged eye witness to the occurrence
gave evidence before the trial Court as on the date of occurrence around
9.15 a.m., when she was in class room, some of the teachers came there and
informed that the deceased met with an accident.
(v) P.W.5-Dr.Kiruthika, speaks about the injury sustained by the
deceased and about the issuance of post mortem certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
(vi) P.W.6-Balaji, the then Inspector of Police, Sivagangai speaks
about the receipt of complaint and about the filing of final report.
(vii) P.W.7-Kannan, who is residing in the occurrence Village,
speaks about the investigation as during the relevant point of time, the
police officer came to the occurrence place and prepared an Observation
Mahazar.
7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false.
However, he did not chose to examine any witness nor mark any document
on his side.
8. Having considered all the above materials placed before him
and after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels
appearing on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sivagangai
convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as stated above. Further, in
the appeal preferred by the accused in C.A.No.100 of 2016, the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai confirmed the findings arrived at by
the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
9. I have heard Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government
Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the
records carefully.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would contend that before the trial Court, though it was alleged that P.W.4-
Balammal and Kanchana had seen the occurrence, the said Balammal had
not given any evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. Further,
the other witness namely Kanchana has not been examined as a witness and
thereby, the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution did not
speaks about the occurrence. Therefore, it would be decided that the
judgment rendered by the Courts below is erroneous one.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent would submit that the evidence given by the
prosecution is sufficient to hold that the alleged occurrence had happened as
alleged by the prosecution. According to him, interference of this Court in
the findings arrived at by the Courts below does not require.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsels
appearing on either side.
13. Initially, before entering into the merits of the evidence given
by the occurrence witnesses, it would relevant to see the postmortem report
issued by the Doctor and the Motor Vehicle Inspection report issued by the
Motor Vehicle Inspector. Before the trial Court, the postmortem report
issued by P.W.5 was marked as Ex.P2. In the said certificate, the doctor,
who conducted an autopsy, gave an opinion that the death would occur due
to the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased.
14. In the said circumstances, in respect to the injury stated in the
postmortem certificate, there was no denial on the side of the accused that
the same could not caused due to the alleged road accident. Therefore, it
should be acknowledged that the injuries sustained by the deceased would
happen only due to the road accident as alleged by the prosecution.
15. Secondly, Ex.P7 the Motor Vehicle Inspector report reveals
the fact that the alleged accident is not due to the mechanical defect of the
offending vehicle. In this aspect also, there is no denial on the side of the
accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
16. Finally, on go through the evidence given by P.W.1, who is
the person set the law in motion, it appears that only upon the information
received from the Principal of the School, she went to the school and
thereafter, lodged a complaint. Similarly, P.W.3, who is the Principal of the
School is a competent person to say the occurrence, gave evidence before
the trial Court as on the date of occurrence one Balammal and Kanchana,
who are the teachers, came to her office and reported the occurrence. In the
said situation, the said Balammal while at the time of giving evidence as
P.W.4 has not given any evidence in support of the case of the prosecution
as she saw the occurrence.
17. Therefore, all the witnesses examined on the side of the
prosecution did not say about the rash and negligent act of the revision
petitioner. Mere filing the certificate, in respect of the reasons for death, is
not sufficient to hold that during the relevant point of time the revision
petitioner drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and committed
the offence. The Courts below without gone into the evidence given by the
prosecution witnesses in a correct perspective manner, came to the
conclusion that the accused is found guilty. Therefore, I am of the opinion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
that the said findings arrived at by the trial Court and the appellate Court is
nothing but erroneous one.
18. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the considered
opinion that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The bail bonds executed
by the revision petitioner shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any,
paid by the appellant, is directed to be refunded to him.
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am/csm 01.09.2021
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai Taluk Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2.The learned District and Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.619 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am/csm
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.619 of 2017
01.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
