Madras High Court
D.Rajendran vs State By on 7 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1234 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.1234 of 2019
D.Rajendran ...Petitioner
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Acharapakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
Cr.No.530 of 1997 ...Respondent
Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the Court of Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, relating to the order dated 25.06.2019 in
Crl.Appeal No.85/2007 and the records relating to judgment dated
04.07.2007 in C.C.No.93 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
Maduranthagam examine the illegality, propriety of the same and set aside
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti – No Appearance
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
----------
ORDER
The criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence made by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Maduranthagam, in C.C.No.93 of 1998, dated 04.07.2007 as confirmed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Additional District and
Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.85 of 2007 dated 25.06.2019.
2 Case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.1997 at about 5.30 a.m.
near GST Road, Edayalam Bridge, the petitioner/accused driven the Lorry
bearing Reg.No.TN 22 A 6696 in a rash and negligent manner following the
Bus bearing Reg.No.TN 01 6184 belong to the Tamilnadu State Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
Corporation and suddenly applied break, due to which, the vehicle lost the
control and toppled, in which, five persons lost their lives and some of the
witnesses have sustained injuries. Hence the present case was registered
against the petitioner/accused.
3 After completing investigation, the respondent police filed a
charge sheet for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthagam, which was taken on
file in C.C.No.93 of 1998. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the
accused guilty of offence charged against him and hence by judgment dated
04.07.2007 convicted the petitioner and imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in
default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the
offence under Section 279, imposed fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 337
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period
of six months for the offence under Section 304(A). Aggrieved against the
same the petitioner has filed an appeal in C.A.No.67 of 2016 and the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, by judgment dated
25.06.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence
made by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner is before this court
with the present criminal revision.
4 When the matter was called for hearing on 18.08.2021, there
was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence in order to give
opportunity, the matter was directed to be listed today. Accordingly, today
i.e. 07.09.2021, when the matter is called for hearing, even today also there
is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Since, the cause of action
arose in the year 1997 and the revision is pending before this Court for more
than two years, this Court decided to dispose of the matter on merits.
5 Accordingly, heard the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the materials
placed on record and also perused the judgments of both the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
6 This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot
exercise power of the Appellate Court and this Court, being a revisional
Court, cannot sit in the arm chair of appellate Court and it has no power to
re-assess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact.
7 On a perusal of the records, it reveal that P.Ws.1 to 4 are
injured witnesses., who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly
stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.14, the Doctor, who
conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased, had opined that the deaths
had occurred only due to the injuries, which was grievous in nature,
sustained by them at the time of accident. The accused should have taken
more care and conscious and should have reduced the speed and avoided the
accident.
8 After perusing the entire documents available on record, this
Court is of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
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 confirmed the
conviction and sentence made by the trial Court, in which this Court does
not find any reason to take a different view.
9 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthagam.
3. The Inspector of Police, Acharapakkam Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.1234 of 2019
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
