Madras High Court
Anandaraj vs State Rep. By on 23 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 597 of 2017
Anandaraj : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Gandarvakottai Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.151 of 2006) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining
to the judgment, dated 17.07.2017 in C.A.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special
Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai confirming the conviction
and sentence made in C.C.No.113 of 2006, dated 04.03.2013 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai and set aside the same by
allowing this Revision.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
For Appellant : Mrs.M.Malathi
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The accused, in C.C.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, is the revision petitioner. The respondent
laid a final report against him before the said Magistrate alleging that the
petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of
IPC. By judgment dated 04.03.2013, the trial Court convicted him under
Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for six months. Challenging the same, he filed an appeal in C.A.No.13 of
2013 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding
Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai. The
learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 17.07.2017, has dismissed the
appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him.
Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner has come
before this Court with this revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) The deceased, in this case, was one Chinnaponnu. She was a
coolie worker and residing in Aravampatti. On the date of occurrence i.e. on
15.04.2006 at about 8.40 a.m., the deceased while walking from East to
West in Gandarvakottai-Pudukkottai road, a lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-55-H-9365 came from the same direction in a great speed, rashly
and negligently and dashed against the deceased. The lorry was driven by
the accused. The deceased sustained injuries and then P.W.1-Rajendhran,
who is the son of the deceased, with the help of P.W.2-Saravanan and
P.W.3-Pavunraj admitted her in the Government Hospital, Gandarvakottai
and within 30 minutes, the doctor declared the death of Chinnaponnu. P.Ws.
2 to 4 are the occurrence witnesses.
(ii) On the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.9-Manoharan, the then Sub-
Inspector of Police, Gandarvakottai Police Station, on 15.04.2006 around
9.30 a.m., registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2006 under Section 304(A)
of IPC. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.4 is the printed First Information
Report. After registering the case, P.W.9 handed over the case diary to the
Inspector of Police for investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
(iii) P.W.10-Iyyampillai, the then Inspector of Police,
Gandarvakottai, took up the case for investigation on 15.04.2006 itself. He
proceeded to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses,
prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.2 and drawn a rough sketch
showing the place of occurrence under Ex.P.6. Then, on the same day, he
conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased in the Government
Hospital, Gandarvakottai. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P.5. He
examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and recorded their statements. Then, he forwarded the
body for postmortem.
(iv) P.W.8-Dr.Shek Dhawooth, conducted an autopsy on the body
of the deceased on 15.04.2006. He found a fracture in the skull. Similarly,
he found abrasion all over the body. He opined that the death was due to
the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries. Ex.P3 is the postmortem
certificate.
(v) Continuing the investigation, P.W.10 forwarded the vehicle
for examination to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The Motor Vehicle
Inspector opined that there was no mechanical defect in the offending
vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Inspector report was marked as Ex.P.7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
P.W.10 collected the medical records, examined the doctor, collected the
reports from the Motor Vehicle Inspector and finally on completing the
investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused under section 304(A) of
IPC.
4. Based on the above materials, the trial Court tried the accused
under Section 304(A) of IPC. The accused denied the same. In order to
prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and
marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
5. Out of the above said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 6 are the eye
witnesses. P.W.7-Senthil Kumar is the witness attested in the Observation
Mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer. P.W.8-doctor has spoken
about the autopsy conducted by him. P.W.9-Manoharan and P.W.10-
Iyyampillai are the police officers spoken about the registration of the case,
investigation and about the filing of final report.
6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. It is the
submission of the accused that the alleged eye witnesses have not seen the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
occurrence, particularly, they have not stated about the rash and negligent
act of the accused. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had not committed
any offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
7. Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court found
him guilty under Section 304(A) of IPC and the lower Appellate Court
confirmed the same. That is how, the accused is before this Court with this
revision.
8. I have heard Mrs.M.Malathi, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner and Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. I have also perused the records
carefully.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the accident would not have happened in the manner as it is
projected by the prosecution. It is his contention that P.Ws.1 to 6 are the
interested witnesses and therefore, their evidences require close scrutiny.
He would further submit that in respect to the direction from which the lorry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
came and in respect to the direction the deceased had proceeded, the
witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution gave an inconsistent
evidence and therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has not proved the
case. However, the Courts below without appreciating the same, convicted
the accused and the same is nothing but perverse.
10. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent would vehemently oppose this Criminal Revision. According to
him, the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 6 would clearly go to show that the accident
was wholly due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the
petitioner. He would further submit that the road was broad enough and
therefore, the accused would have avoided the accident, had he taken due
care and caution. Thus, according to him, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the petitioner does not require any interference at the hands of
this Court.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
12. P.Ws.1 to 6 claimed to have the eye witnesses to the
occurrence. A close reading of the evidences given by P.Ws.1 & 2 would go
to show that the revision petitioner has drove the lorry at the time of
occurrence. In otherwise, in respect of the identity, there was no denial on
the side of the accused as he has not driven the offending vehicle at the time
of occurrence.
13. Now, turning to the evidences given by P.Ws.1 to 6, in respect
of the direction, from which, the lorry was came at the time of occurrence,
P.W.1 has admitted in the cross-examination as in the complaint it was
stated that while at the time of occurrence, the lorry was coming from West
to East. On the other hand, in his chief examination, he has stated when at
the time of occurrence, the lorry was proceeded from East to West, the same
was dashed against his mother, who was also walking in the road from East
to West.
14. Now, on considering the said evidence given by P.W.1, it
seems that he gave contradictory evidence in respect of the lorry proceeded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
at the time of occurrence. Further, the other eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 & 3
gave evidence as while at the time of occurrence, the offending vehicle
came from the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. Per
contra, P.Ws.4 & 5 have narrated the occurrence that the lorry was
proceeded from East to West and dashed against the deceased, who was also
proceeded from East to West.
15. Therefore, cull out the entire evidence which reveals the fact
that in respect to the direction, from which, the lorry was proceeded at the
time of occurrence, the eye witnesses examined on the side of the
prosecution gave a different version and the same created a doubt whether
they were seen the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
16. Apart from that, all the eye witnesses have given evidence as
during the time of occurrence, the offending vehicle was driven by its driver
in a high speed. In otherwise, in respect to the negligence or rashness, they
have not stated as at the time of occurrence, the driver of the lorry with
rashness and negligent manner drove the same and dashed against the
deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in respect to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
negligence or rashness act of the accused, this Court is not in a position to
hold during the time of occurrence, the accused herein drove the lorry in a
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and thereby, he
committed an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC.
17. The evidence given by the Investigating Officer would go to
show that in the occurrence place, road is a wider road, therefore, it is
obvious, the driver, who drove the vehicle in the occurrence place, may
drive his vehicle in a high speed. In otherwise, it is a settled law that driving
the vehicle in a high speed is not an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC
and thereby, from the above, I am of the considered view that the Courts
below without appreciating the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses
in a proper perspective manner, particularly, in respect to the direction,
wherein, the lorry was proceeded at the time of occurrence, came to the
conclusion that the accused herein committed an offence. This is erroneous
one.
18. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the Courts
below is set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. Fine amount, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond if any shall stand
cancelled.
23.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
To:-
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Gandarvakottai Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.597 of 2017
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
