Madras High Court
M.Suresh vs State Represented By on 7 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
M.Suresh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
M-3, Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
Crime No.275 of 2011 ...Respondent
Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure to call for entire records in respect of judgment
rendered by the learned I Additional District Cum Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, dated 18.07.2019 in C.A.No.98 of 2019 against the
judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore,
dated 12.02.2019 in C.C.No.502 of 2012 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
--------
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
ORDER
The criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment
made by the learned I Additional District Cum Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore, dated 18.07.2019 in C.A.No.98 of 2019 against the
judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore,
dated 12.02.2019 in C.C.No.502 of 2012.
2 Case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2011 at about
2.45 p.m. one Ravi along with his pillion rider one Kanagaraj drove a
two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TVS XL Super TN 42-4156 and were
proceeding from Kovilpalayam to Coimbatore. While both of them
together were proceeding near the Sakthi Main Road, Karattumedu
Mattu Pannai, in the opposite direction suddenly one Eicher Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-11-A-2259 came in a rash and negligent manner
and hit against the two wheeler, resulting which the said Ravi
sustained severe head injury and died and the another one Kanagaraj
sustained injuries on his left leg and right hand. Hence the present
case in Crime No.275 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner
for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304 (A) IPC.
3 After competing investigation, the respondent police laid a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore,
and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.502 of 2012. The learned
Magistrate, after trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either
side, by judgment dated 12.02.2019 convicted the petitioner and
imposed fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section
279 of IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of six months with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under
Section 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year of 1 year with fine of Rs.5000/-
, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
one month for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC.
4 Assailing the above judgment of conviction and sentence,
the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and same was taken
on file in C.A.No.98 of 2019 and made over the appeal to the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties,
by judgment dated 18.07.2019, dismissed the appeal and confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with
the present criminal revision case.
5 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is
no proof to show that the petitioner/accused had driven the vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner and prosecution did not prove that the
accident had occurred only due to carelessness of the petitioner.
P.W.1, 3 and 4 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence and from their
evidence it is clear that they are all only hearsay witnesses and their
evidence cannot be taken into account for recording conviction.
Further P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 are only interested witnesses, who would
naturally support the case of the prosecution. Even as per Ex.P3 and
4, the accident could not have happened as projected by the
prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Further the alleged occurrence is only an accident
and not a pre-planned incident, but the prosecution has given a
criminal color for the accident. Both the Courts below have failed to
consider the nature of the case and erroneously convicted the
petitioner/accused, which warrants interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the respondent police would submit that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are
the eye witness to the occurrence had clearly stated about the
manner in which the accident had taken place. There is no material
contradiction. The petitioner/accused having seen that there was a
vehicle coming from opposite direction, drove the vehicle at high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two
wheeler, due to which, the said Ravi died and P.W.2 sustained
grievous injuries. Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and convicted the petitioner, which does not call
for any interference of this Court and the revision is liable to be
dismissed.
7 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent
police and perused the materials available on record.
8 On a perusal of the records, it reveal that P.Ws.1 and 2,
who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly stated that the
accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
the offending vehicle. P.W.10, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on
the deceased, had opined that the death had occurred only due to the
injuries, which was grievous in nature, sustained at the time of
accident. The accused, being a driver of a heavy vehicle, after seeing
the vehicle coming from opposite direction, should have taken more
care and conscious and should have reduced the speed and avoided
the accident. After perusing the entire documents available on record,
this Court is of the view that the prosecution had proved its case
beyond reasonable doubts. The lower appellate Court, as a final Court
of fact finding, had re-appreciated entire evidences on record and
come to the conclusion, that the accident had occurred only due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and
hence convicted the petitioner/accused, in which this Court does not
find any reason to take a different view. However in order meet ends
of justice, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of
imprisonment alone, since it is only an accident and not a pre-planned
incident.
9 In the result, the conviction made by both the Courts
below is hereby confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
of one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC alone is
modified to six months. The criminal revision is dismissed with the
above modification. Trial Court is directed to secure the
petitioner/accused to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if
any.
07.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
cgi
To
1. The I Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police, M-3, Kovilpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2019
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
