Madras High Court
Dayalan vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 21 September, 2021
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
Dayalan ... Petitioner
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police,
Thiruvannamalai East Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment made in
C.A.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Thiruvannamalai convicting the petitioner under section 279 of I.P.C to
pay fine of Rs.400/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of two weeks and under section 337 (2 counts ) of I.P.C to pay fine of
Rs.200/- each and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2
weeks and under section 304(A) of I.P.C to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and i/d to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks by confirming the
judgment made in C.C.No.124 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arul Raj
for M/s.J.Lenin
For Respondent : Mr,M.Sugendran
Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment dated
03.09.2018 passed in C.C.No.124 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for
the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 (two counts) and 304(A)
I.P.C. After completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai. The learned Magistrate taken
cognizance of the case in C.C.No.124 of 2014 and after completing trial,
convicted the petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337 (two
counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Court,
Thiruvannamalai. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, taken
the appeal on file in Crl.A.No.6 of 2019 and after hearing the arguments
advanced on either side and considered the materials, re-appreciated
the evidence and dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of the
trial court. Again challenging the said judgment of dismissal, the petitioner
has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is not involved in the commission of offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Without having driving license and without knowing how to
ride the two wheeler, P.W.1 and 2 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the Tamil Nadu Government Bus bearing
registration No.T.N.25-N-0356. Hence, the occurrence has taken place.
The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence, convicted the petitioner
and the appellate court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence,
simply endorsed the views of the Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
appeal, which warrants interference of this Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit
that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses and they supported the case of the
prosecution. The Tamil Nadu Government Bus bearing registration
No.T.N.25-N-0356 which was driven by the petitioner came behind the
two wheeler in which, P.W.1 is the rider and P.W.2 and the deceased are
pillion riders. The petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the two wheeler, due to which, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the
deceased sustained injuries and hence, he committed the offence
punishable under sections 279, 337(2 counts) and 304(a) I.P.C. The
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of eye
witnesses, medical evidence, post-mortem report, clearly shows that the
deceased died due to accident. Due to the accident, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
also sustained injuries. Wound certificate also proved the same. There is
no merit in this revision case and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
perused the records.
7. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2014, while P.W.1
was riding a motor cycle in which the deceased and P.W.2 are pillion
riders towards Tiruvannamalai -Vellore road, the petitioner drove the
Government Bus bearing Registration No.T.N.25-N-0356 in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the motor vehicle, due to which,
occurrence has taken place. The injured were sent to hospital for
treatment. Hence the complaint.
8. The trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence
punishable under sections 279, 337 (2 counts) and 304 (A) I.P.C and
convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 279 I.P.C., to pay a
fine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks
and convicted him for the offence under section 337(2 counts) I.P.C to pay
a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two
weeks each and convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 304(A) I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three months simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two weeks.
9. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner,
on the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to
19 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. No material object
was exhibited. P.W.1 is the eye witness. Though he has not having a
driving license, the defence has not established that P.W.1 does not know
driving and due to that the accident has taken place. Non production of
driving license may not be a sole ground to disbelieve the case of the
prosecution, unless it is established that lack of driving of the rider of the
motor vehicle, the accident has taken place. The contention of the defence
is that at the time of accident, three persons were travelled in two wheeler
and due to non- balance of the vehicle, the accident has taken place.
P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries and the deceased died due to accidental
injury. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has clearly established that the accident
had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Government Transport bus. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both the trial
court and appellate court rightly appreciated the evidence of the eye
witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and medical evidence and come to the conclusion
that the revision petitioner has committed the offence under sections 279,
337 (two counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.
10. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the
appreciation of evidence by the Courts below and hence, the revision is
liable to be dismissed. There is no merit in the Revision Petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
21.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mfa
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
mfa
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Principal District Court,
Thiruvannamalai
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvannamalai East Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
