Mahendran vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 3373 Mad

                                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 23.02.2022

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                     Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

                  Mahendran                                                       ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.
                  State represented by,
                  Inspector of Police,
                  Kadathur Police Station,
                  Erode District.
                  (Cr.No.134/2010).                                               ... Respondent

                  PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
                  Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment and convicted dated 22.8.2016
                  and made in C.A.No.32/2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions
                  Judge, Gobichettipalayam, partly modifying the judgment and conviction dated
                  11.1.2016 and made in C.C.No.132/2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate
                  No.2, Gobichettipalayam.

                                    For Petitioner       :     Mr.R.T.Doraisamy

                                    For Respondent       :     Mr.A.Damodaran,
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                              *****
                                                             ORDER

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam/trial Court in C.C.No.132 of 2010, dated

11.01.2016, for offence under Section 279 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment; for offence under Section

337 IPC, the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one

week Simple Imprisonment; for offence under Section 304(A) IPC, the

petitioner to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment; for offence

under Section 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner to pay a fine

of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment. As against

the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the learned III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Gobichettipalayam/lower appellate Court. The learned III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, by judgment, dated

22.08.2016 in C.A.No.32 of 2016 modified the sentence of the trial Court in so

far as the offence under Section 304(A) IPC that the petitioner to undergo

three months Rigorous Imprisonment instead of five months and to pay a fine

of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and

confirmed rest of the conviction and sentence, against which the petitioner is

before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2010, at about 10.20

p.m., near the house of PW2, the petitioner has driven the tractor bearing

registration No.TN 37 AD 2641 in rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the two wheeler of the deceased bearing registration No.TN 38 B 4097.

Due to the accident, the deceased Vijayakumar, who is the rider of the bike

sustained head injury and later, died. PW1, who is the pillion in the bike

driven by the deceased, sustained simple injury. Hence, a complaint was

lodged by PW1 to the respondent Police, which was registered in FIR in Crime

No.134 of 2010, for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304(A) IPC and

Section 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On completion of investigation,

the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court and it was taken on file as

C.C.No.132 of 2010. On completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced as stated above.

3.During trial, on the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were

examined and 11 documents were marked. On the side of the defence, no

witness and no document was marked.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the

prosecution is not supported by the evidence and witnesses collected during

investigation. The deceased Vijayakumar is the brother of PW1. PW1 is said

to be a pillion rider. It was her brother (deceased), who has driven the motor

cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor of the

petitioner. It is the admitted case that the Motor Vehicle Inspector/PW9 during

inspection of the petitioner's tractor, found damage in rear side and not on the

front side. He further submitted that the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are

said to be eye witnesses to the scene of occurrence, are contrary to the

evidence of PW1. The other witnesses in this case are relatives of the deceased

and PW1, Doctors/PW13, PW15, Motor Vehicle Inspector/PW9 and the

Investigating Officer/PW16. According to the evidence of the Motor Vehicle

Inspector/PW9, it is confirmed that there was damage in rear side of the

petitioner's tractor and not on the front side as projected by the prosecution.

These facts have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court as well as the

lower appellate Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgments of the

Courts below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

5.On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondent Police submitted that in this case, the presence of the

injured witness PW1 is not in dispute. PW1 was pillion rider (deceased) of the

motor bike bearing registration No.TN 37 AD 2641. In the cross examination

of PW1, nowhere it is seen that the points now raised by the petitioner are

putforth to the witnesses. In the chief examination, some of the witnesses

stated that since the accident had taken place during night hours, it could not

be witnessed. PW1 in her evidence has stated that at about 10.20 p.m., on the

fateful day, when she was riding along with her brother/deceased in two

wheeler near Sundakkampalayam Junction from east to west direction, the

tractor driven by the petitioner came in a rash and negligent manner on the

opposite side and dashed against the two wheeler on the right side. Due to

which, PW1's brother sustained head injury and died on the spot. The

accident took place near the house of one Sarasu/PW2.

6.He further submitted that in this case, PW1 was treated by PW15

Doctor. In the Accident Register (Ex.P9) the injuries sustained by PW1

recorded. Further, the evidence of PW1 is in conformity to the evidence of

PW15 and other witnesses. At the time of occurrence, the petitioner was not a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

license holder to drive the tractor. Hence, the Courts below rightly convicted

the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

7.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials

available on record.

8.During trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side

of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined, 11 documents

were marked.

9.On reading the evidence of PW1, it is seen that the petitioner has

driven the tractor bearing registration No.TN 37 AD 2641 in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the right side of the deceased two

wheeler. Due to the incident, the deceased sustained grievous injury and PW1

sustained simple injury. The Doctors (PW13 & PW15) who gave treatment to

the deceased and PW1 have stated about the injuries sustained by them and

issued Accident Registers (Exs.P5 & P9), which is in conformity to the

evidence of PW1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

10.Thus, the Lower Appellate Court, being a fact finding Court has

correctly re-appreciated the entire evidence and materials and confirmed the

judgment of the trial Court.

11.It is well settled that the scope of the criminal revision is very limited,

unless there is any illegality or any perversity in the appreciation of evidence

by the Courts below.

12.On reading of the entire materials, this Court does not find any

illegality or perversity or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court and the

lower appellate Court and the same are, hereby, confirmed.

13.In the light of the above discussion, the criminal revision is not

sustainable and, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.

23.02.2022 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

vv2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2 To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Gobichettipalayam.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kadathur Police Station, Erode District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.183 of 2017

23.02.2022

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