Madras High Court
V. Sivasamy vs The State Rep. on 12 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
V. Sivasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep., by
Inspector of Police,
T.I.W. (East), Coimbatore.
(Crime No.154/12) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed against the
petitioner in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court,
Coimbatore dated 25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177
of 2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015 and
acquit the petitioner in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of the respondent
police.
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent : Mr. N.S. Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
ORDER
This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment passed
in Crl.A.No.108 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated
25.08.2015 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.177 of 2012 by the
Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore dated 24.04.2015.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.177 of 2012 tried for
offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Both the Courts below found
him guilty, conviction of one year simple imprisonment and fine of
Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for
offence under Section 279 IPC, is challenged in this revision petition.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2012 at about
15.45 hours, near NGB College on the Coimbatore, Chitra to Kalapatti
Road, the Tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-38-AR-2995 driven by
the petitioner herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Babu,
who was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-37-BW-4403.
The said accident was witnessed by P.W.1 who is the friend of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
following him in his two wheeler. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1,
prosecution has registered the case in Crime No.154 of 2012 on the file of
the respondent police.
3(i). Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses
and marked 8 exhibits. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the eye witness,
the rough sketch marked as Ex.P7 and the report of the Motor Vehicle
Inspector which were marked as Exs.P3 and P6. Both the Courts below
held that the accused had driven rashly and negligently, had come on the
right side of the road and hit the two wheeler, causing the death of the said
Babu.
3(ii). Taking note of the damages caused to the two wheeler and the
Tanker lorry, which was on the right side of the mudguard, the Court held
that the prosecution has proved that the accused was driving the Tanker
lorry rashly.
3(iii). The appeal preferred by the accused before the Principle
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.108 of 2015 was dismissed,
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Aggrieved over the same, this revision petition has been preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused based on the sole
evidence of P.W.1 who is an interested witness and his presence at the time
of occurrence is highly doubtful. The Courts below failed to note that the
deceased had no valid driving licence and due to his inexperience, he fell on
the road and invited the accident.
4(i). Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit
that the factum of accident cannot lead to a presumption that the accident
was caused by the Tanker lorry driver. The in-consistence and contradiction
in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the point of impact between the two
wheeler and the Tanker lorry causes the prosecution case doubtful.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent would submit that Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, Exs.P3
and P6 and the rough sketch Ex.P7, clearly show that the Tanker lorry was
proceeding on the wrong side and hit the two wheeler. Omission to collect
the driving license of the deceased is not a material in this case. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
fact that the accident occurred when the Tanker lorry was proceeding on the
wrong side of the road, clearly proved through ocular evidence as well as
documentary evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. P.W.1 is the eye
witness to the occurrence, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are witnesses to the observation
mahazar which was marked as Ex.P2. P.W.4 is the Motor Vehicle
Inspector, who has given the certificate Ex.P3 in respect of the two wheeler
driven by the deceased. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who
inspected the Tanker lorry and given the report, marked as Ex.P6. The post-
mortem report, Ex.P4 and the opinion of the post-mortem doctor,
Kulandaivelu (P.W.5), reveals that the deceased died out of the injury
sustained in the road accident. Particularly, the head injury which has
caused fracture of scalp and exposure of brain. The limp of the deceased
found crushed.
7. The case of the prosecution is that the Tanker lorry hit the two
wheeler head down and the rider of the two wheeler was run over by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
rear wheel of the Tanker lorry is proved through the injuries found in the
post-mortem report and the damage of right side front mudguard of the
Tanker lorry has found in Ex.P6. The alleged damage of two wheeler as
found in Ex.P3 indicates the front wheel handle bar mirror and head lights
are totally crushed and damaged. Therefore, inconsistency pointed by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the deposition of P.W.1
regarding the point of impact fails to impress in the light of oral evidence
placed by the prosecution.
8. Therefore, this Court finds no error in convicting the petitioner
/ accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. Insofar as the
sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner is sentenced to
undergo one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304(A)
IPC.
9. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has a family to
support and he is making out his livelihood as a driver, instead of one year
simple imprisonment, sentence is modified to undergo three months simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
imprisonment. The fine amount imposed for offence under Section 279 IPC
and for offence under Section 304(A) IPC is confirmed.
10. In fine, the petitioner / accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for offence
under Section 279 IPC and to undergo three months simple imprisonment
and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment for offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Accordingly, this
criminal revision case is partly allowed.
12.08.2022
AT
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT
To
1.The Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
T.I.W. (East), Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1047 of 2015
12.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
