Madras High Court
Senthil Kumar vs State Rep. By on 6 September, 2021
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.428 of 2019
Senthil Kumar
...Petitioner / Appellant/ Accused
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
N2, Kasimedu Traffic Investigation,
Chennai.
... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment dated
19.02.2019 in C.A.No.549 of 2018 on the file of learned XVIII
Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, confirming the sentence imposed
by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai,
Dated 01.10.2018 made in C.C.No.379 of 2018 and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Panneer Selvan (NA)
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment
dated 19.02.2019 in C.A.No.549 of 2018 passed by the learned XVIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town, Chennai, by order dated 01.10.2018 in C.C.No.379 of 2018 and
acquit the petitioner.
2. The matter is pending from the year 2019. Despite given
sufficient opportunities, there is no representation on the side of he
petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Section 304 (A) IPC and 184, 146 read with 196, 3 read with Section 181
of Motor Vehicle Act. Considering the fact that the revision is pending
for 2 years and neither the petitioner, nor his Counsel are co-operating
for the disposal of the revision, this Court is inclined to dispose the
revision on merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.01.2018 at about 20.30
hrs. at S.N.Chetti Salai, near Police Check Post, the accused drove the
motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without licence and insurance
to his vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 01 AE 1256 from south to north and
dashed on the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 09 AW 0484 due to
which, the rider of the motor cycle Nageswararao sustained injury on his
head and despite treatment being given at Stanley Hospital, he died on
10.01.2018 at 10.40 a.m. Hence, the complaint.
4. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner
for the offence under Sections 304(A) IPC and Sections 184, 146 read
with 196, 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and after investigation
laid charge sheet before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai. The learned Magistrate after completing the formalities and
trial, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 304(A) IPC
and Sections 184, 146 read with 196, 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle
Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act and also imposed fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 146 read with 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, and further imposed
fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment for
the offence under Section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle act.
Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner
filed a criminal appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, taken the appeal on file in
Crl.A.No.549 of 2018 and made over the case to the XVIII Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai, and the learned XVIII Additional Sessions
Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and
considering the material evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the conviction and sentence passed by the the learned III Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Challenging the said Judgment of
dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has filed the present revision before
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
5. Heard Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on record.
6. As already stated, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and
there is no co-operation on the side of the petitioner and that the revision
is pending for two years, this Court disposes the case on on merit after
hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent police.
7. In this case, in order to substantiate the charges, on the side of
the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
P.W.12 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Out of the 12
witnesses, P.W.1 is the eyewitness and he has spoken about the manner of
accident. Subsequently, the vehicle was produced before the Motor
Vehicle Inspector and he has given opinion wherein, it is stated that the
accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. Further, the
evidence of the doctors who admitted the injured in the hospital and gave
treatment and subsequently, who conducted the post mortem and issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
the death certificate shows that the victim died due to the accidental
injuries. Since, there was eyewitness in this case, the trial Court found
that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the
eyewitness and medical evidence that the accident had happened only
due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Therefore, under these
circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the revision and
there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts
below. Though, during cross examination, the petitioner had pointed out
certain contradictions, the said contradictions are not material
contradictions which would go into the root of the prosecution.
Therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly
appreciated the evidence and given findings that the accident had
happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner due
to which, the deceased died and therefore, rightly convicted the
petitioner.
8. The eyewitness/P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the accident and
this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
evidence by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision
and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
06.09.2021
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.428 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ksa-2
To
1. The XVIII Additional Sessions Judge
Chennai,
2. The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai,
3. The Inspector of Police
N2, Kasimedu Traffic Investigation,
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.
5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
Criminal Revision Case No.428 of 2019
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
