M.Madan @ Madankumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 18399 Mad

                                                                       CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 08.09.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                               CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019


                     M.Madan @ Madankumar
                     S/o, Madurai,                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                       Versus

                     The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Traffic Investigation Unit,
                     K-10, Koyembedu Police Station,
                     Chennai – 600 107.                                           ... Respondent



                     PRAYER:
                               Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401
                     of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the Revision Petition and set
                     aside the judgment of conviction imposed in C.A.No.237 of 2013 on the
                     file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated
                     13.04.2017 confirming the judgment in C.C.No.19040 of 2005 on the file
                     of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai dated
                     11.09.2013.

                     Page No.1 of 9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                       CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

                                      For Respondent   : Mr,M.Sugendran
                                                         Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to allow the

Revision Petition and set aside the judgment dated 13.04.2017 passed in

C.A.No.237 of 2013 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, City

Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed

in C.C.No.19040 of 2005 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The respondent registered a case against the petitioner for the

offence under sections 279, 304(A) I.P.C(two counts) 337 IPC (7 counts)

and 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. After investigation, laid a charge

sheet before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in

C.C.No.19040 of 2005 and the learned Magistrate, after trial, found the

accused guilty for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A(two counts)

and 337 (seven counts)convicted I.P.C and 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 M.V

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

Act and convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 279, 304-A

(two counts) and 337 (seven counts) IPC and 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 M.V

Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under

section 279 I.P.C, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo,

simple imprisonment for a period of one month on each count for the

offence under section 304-A(two counts) and for the offence under

section 337 IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo,

simple imprisonment for further period of two weeks, on each count and

under Section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 M.V Act to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two

weeks. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, he

filed the appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in

Crl.Appeal No.237 of 2013. The learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Chennai made over the appeal to the VI Additional Sessions Judge, City

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

Civil Court, Chennai, for disposal. The learned Sessions Judge, after

hearing the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials,

dismissed the appeal, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.

Challenging the said judgment of the appellate court, the petitioner has

filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as projected

by the prosecution and the witnesses are chance witnesses and the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 contradicted with the complaint and also the

report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The material contradictions would

go to show that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt. The trial court based on the presumption, assumption

and on sympathy ground, convicted the petitioner. Both the Courts

below failed to appreciate the contradictions between the prosecution

witnesses and also the evidence of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which

warrants interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

for the respondent would submit that P.Ws.1 to 5 are eye witnesses and

they were also passengers in the vehicle involved in the accident. The

petitioner is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65

8998 and driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against a stone on the road and therefore the vehicle got damaged, two of

the passengers were died and some of the passengers were sustained

injuries, subsequently the injured persons were sent to the hospital for

treatment and other witnesses are also injured witnesses. Therefore, the

prosecution proved its case from the oral and documentary evidence, that

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the vehicle, therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the petitioner

and there is no perversity in the judgment of the both the Courts below.

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

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and

perused the records.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

6. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence,

driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 8998 driven the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stone on the

road and therefore the vehicle got damaged and two of the passengers

were died and some of the passengers were sustained injuries and

subsequently the injured persons were sent to the hospital for treatment.

Hence the complaint.

7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the

prosecution, before the trial court, as many as 13 witnesses were

examined and 19 documents were marked. No material object was

marked. Out of which, P.Ws.1 to 5 are eye witnesses as well as the

injured witnesses and they have clearly spoken about the accident and the

manner of the accident and two of the passengers who traveled in the

vehicle were died. There is no dispute in that regard. At the time of

accident, the petitioner only drove the vehicle is also not disputed by

him. The only thing the defence counsel has stated that the prosecution

failed to prove the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

the petitioner and however on a reading of the evidence of eye witnesses

who are also injured witnesses traveled in the vehicle, both the Courts

below, found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 8998

and the evidence of the eye witnesses clearly shows that the TATA – 407-

bearing Registration No.TN65 8998 was proceeded from west to east on

Poonamalee High Road opposite to Sri Devi Hospital in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against a median in yellow colour having

height of ¾ feet and capsized in opposite place where Sri Devi Hospital

is situated and therefore, one Mr.Pandi and Mr. Arumugam who were

seated in front seat of the vehicle entangled with the rear left wheel of the

vehicle were died on the spot itself. The petitioner is the driver has not

taken any contra evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that

the petitioner drove the said vehicle at the time of accident in a rash and

negligent manner. Due to that accident, two persons were succumbed to

death and some persons were sustained injuries. Both the Courts below

rightly appreciated the evidence and this Court does not find any

perversity in appreciation of the evidence and there is no merit in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

08.09.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mfa

To

1. The VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

CRL.R.C.No.835 of 2019

08.09.2021

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