Vinoth Kumar vs State Represented By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 17903 Mad

                                                                              CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                DATED: 02.09.2021

                                                        Coram:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                         Criminal Revision Case No.684 of 2019

                     Vinoth Kumar                                                     ...Petitioner
                                                          Vs.
                     State Represented by its
                     Sub Inspector of Police
                     Thirupattur Town Police Station
                     Thirupattur, Vellore District
                                                                                    ...Respondent

                     Prayer :        Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order in C.A.No.5 of
                     2017 dated 22.03.2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions
                     Judge,        Vellore @ Thirupattur, by confirming the order of Judicial
                     Magistrate Court No.1, Thirupattur District in C.C.No.115 of 2013 dated
                     25.01.2017.
                                     For Petitioner          :Mr.R.Jaikumar

                                     For Respondent          : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                     1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019


                                                       ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the Judgment in

C.A.No.5 of 2017 dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupattur, confirming the order

of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Thirupattur District in

C.C.No.115 of 2013 dated 25.01.2017.

2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.236 of

2013 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304(A) and

279 IPC. After completing the investigation, the respondent police laid the

charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Thirupattur District

and the learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.115 of

2013. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner

guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and convicted

and sentenced him to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the

offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default

to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section

279 IPC. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,

and the learned Sessions Judge, taken the appeal on file in C.A.No.5 of

2017 and made over the case to the III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Vellore at Tirupattur. The learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and

re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said

Judgment of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has filed the present

revision before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is

no eyewitness to this case. Though P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 have been cited to be

eyewitnesses to this case, there are contradictions even with regard to

place of occurrence. In the complaint, P.W.1 has stated that the accident

took place when the deceased was driving his two wheeler at the left side

of the road whereas, the witnesses have stated right side of the road which

itself shows that P.Ws.4,5, and 6 are not eyewitnesses and they could not

have present at the time of accident in the place of occurrence. Even the

Motor Vehicle Inspector's report clearly shows that the evidence of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

prosecution witnesses are not corroborating the same. Therefore, there are

material contradictions which can go into the root of the case of the

prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt. Further, P.W.1 / complainant is not an eyewitness and he

is only hearsay witnesses and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased who is also

not an eyewitness. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that P.Ws.4,5 and 6 are

not relatives and they are known persons whereas, P.Ws.4,5 and 6 have

stated that they are not known persons. Further P.Ws.4,5 and 6 have not

stated the name of the deceased and they have only stated when a person

was driving a two wheeler, the accused who drove the lorry in a rash and

negligent manner hit on the two wheeler from the back side and thereby,

the person who was driving the two wheeler fell down and sustained injury

and there was bleeding in the nose of the injured and that they saw the

incident. Further P.W.1 has not stated that P.Ws.4,5 and 6 had informed

him about the accident. Even P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not stated who

informed them about the accident. Therefore, P.Ws.4,5 and 6 could not

be eyewitnesses to the accident and the trial Court failed to appreciate the

evidence properly and there is no corroboration and that the trial Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

convicted the appellant based on conjectures and sympathy and in order

to get the compensation from the Tribunal, the petitioner has been made

liable to the accident. Further, the appellate Court also failed to appreciate

the evidence properly and without giving independent findings, simply

endorsed the views of the Magistrate. Therefore, the Judgments of both the

Courts below are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent police would submit that P.W.1 is the complainant and he is the

father of the deceased. P.Ws.4,5 and 6 are the eyewitnesses and they have

clearly deposed that they had seen the accident; when the deceased was

crossing in front of them in a two wheeler, TATA 407 truck which came in

a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two wheeler from its back due

to which, the deceased sustained injury and died. Further, P.W.5 in his

evidence has clearly stated that at that time, a friend of the deceased who

had come there informed that the deceased is a Mechanic and through him,

intimation was given to the family of the deceased. The prosecution by

examining witness 4 to 6 clearly proved that the appellant committed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

offence under Section 279 IPC. Thus, the prosecution proved its case

beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the Courts below have rightly

appreciated the evidence and there is no merit in this revision and the

revision is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and

perused the materials on record.

6. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2013 at about 6.30

hours when the deceased was riding the two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN

23 AQ 2905 and proceeding near Tirupattur Meenakshi Theatre towards

North side of the road, TATA 407 Truck bearing Regn. No.TN 45 E 3191

driven by the petitioner / accused in a rash and negligent manner in high

speed, dashed against the back side of the two wheeler of the deceased

due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

7. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner,

on the side of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses were examined as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P7. Out of

the 11 witnesses, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1.

8. A reading of the evidence of the complainant/P.W.1 shows that he

is the father of the deceased who gave the complaint before the respondent

police. However, he has not stated as to who informed him about the

accident. Though, he has stated during cross examination that P.Ws.4,5

and 6 are not relatives and they are known persons, the reading of the

evidence of P.Ws.4,5 and 6 shows that the deceased is not a known

person to them and in their evidence they have only stated that one person

travelled in a two wheeler in front of them. Further, in the F.I.R. and the

rough sketch, it is mentioned that the vehicle proceeded from South to

North on the left side of the road whereas, the witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5

have stated right side of the road. Further P.Ws.5 and 6 have stated that

they had not seen the injured immediately after the accident and they have

stated that P.W.4 had rushed to the accident place and seen the deceased

immediately after the incident. However, P.W.4 has not stated that he

informed about the accident to the father of the deceased or relatives or to

the police. Therefore, P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 neither stated that immediately after

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

the accident they informed to the police or to the relatives of the deceased

or taken the deceased to the hospital and they have not acted in that

manner which itself shows that they could not be eyewitnesses to the case.

The trial Court and the appellate Court not properly appreciated the

evidence and this Court finds perversity in the appreciation of evidence by

the Courts below.

9. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and also the rough

sketch/Ex.P.7 and report of the Motor vehicle Inspector/Ex.P.3, this Court

finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt and that due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner,

the accident had happened. When two views are possible, the benefit of

doubt should go in favour of the accused. This Court finds that the

evidence adduced by the prosecution are not sufficient to convict the

petitioner and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is extended in favour of

the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this Criminal Revision

case is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupattur District in C.C.No.115 of

2013 dated 25.01.2017 and confirmed by the learned III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupattur, by Judgment dated

22.03.2019 in C.A.No.5 of 2017 are set aside.

11. Bail bond if any executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled

and fine amount if any paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.

02.09.2021

ksa-2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.RC.No.684 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J

ksa-2

To

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Thirupattur,

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupattur District

3. The Sub Inspector of Police Thirupattur Town Police Station Thirupattur, Vellore District

4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

Criminal Revision Case No.684 of 2019

02.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis