Madras High Court
Kannan vs The State Represented By on 25 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
Kannan ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Nagore Police Station,
Nagapattinam.
Crime No.255 of 2007 ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the Lower
Appellate Court and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.58
of 2013 dated 06.08.2014 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam it is confirmed Judgment passed in C.C.No.23 of 2010 dated
27.04.2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.L.A.J.Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision in R.C.No.1258 of 2014 is filed by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagapattinam dated 27.04.2010 in C.C.No.23 of 2010, thereby
convicting the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 279 of IPC and
imposing fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment and under Section 304A of IPC, to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment, and the Judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam dated 06.08.2014 in C.A.No.58 of 2013, thereby dismissing the
appeal preferred by the petitioner/accused and confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.
2. On 11.05.2007, P.W-1 namely Anbalagan went to the Nagore
Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on 11.05.2007 at about
10.30 am, he and his grand father namely Kannaian were returning home after
taking treatment for his grand father at the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam
and when they were near the house of one Dhanapal, Son of Kannaian in
Perumal Keezha Veethi, even while his grand father was walking along with left
hand side of the road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-J-5151 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
suddenly taken reverse in a rash and negligent manner without any horn or
precaution and the rear wheel of the lorry ran over his grand father and his body
was crushed on the spot and he died.
3. On the said complaint, P.W-9 Selvi Caroline, the Sub-Inspector of
Police registered a case in Crime No.255 of 2007 for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Thereafter, P.W-10 Karunanithi, the Inspector
of Police, took up the case for investigation, completed the investigation and
filed a final report dated 19.05.2007 proposing the petitioner/accused guilty of
the offences.
4. The case was taken on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.23 of 2010 and upon issuance of
summons to the petitioner/accused, upon furnishing the copies as per Section
207 of Cr.P.C, upon questioning the petitioner/accused denied the charges and
stood trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W-11 and marked
Ex.P1-Ex.P7.
5. Upon being questioned about the adverse evidence and
incriminating circumstances on record, the petitioner/accused denied the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
as false under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, no oral or documentary
evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court therefore
proceeded to hear the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution
and the learned counsel for the petitioner and by its Judgment dated
27.04.2010, upon considering the evidence of eye witnesses namely P.W-1 and
P.W-3 and considering the evidence of the owner of the lorry namely P.W-11
held that the accident happened on the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner/accused inasmuch as he reversed the lorry in a high speed without
any horn or precaution whatsoever and hit the deceased/victim and caused the
accident. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the medical
evidence and found that the deceased/victim died on account of the crush
injuries caused due to the accident and therefore found the petitioner/accused
guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced as
aforesaid.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal
in C.A.No.58 of 2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Court,
Nagapattinam. The First Appellate Court by its Judgment dated 06.08.2014
after considering the evidences of P.W-1 and P.W-3 held that the eye witnesses
have clearly spoken about the incident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector also has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
given a certificate and the same was marked as Ex.P-3 and upon the
consideration whereof, there was no mechanical defect in the lorry and
considering the charge of the prosecution that the petitioner/accused drove the
vehicle in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and caused the crush
injuries, the First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Criminal Revision Case is laid before this Court.
7. Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that in this case, the findings of the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court are perverse in nature because, they failed and
omitted to consider the artificial nature of the evidences of P.W-1 and P.W-3.
8. According to him, a perusal of the inquest report clearly reads as
follows:-
".......yhhp oiuth; ,Uf;ifapd; tyJ gpd;
gf;f tPy; fz;izad; kPJ Vwp jiyiaj;jtpu cly;
KGtJk; eR';fp rpije;J ,we;Js;shh; vd;W mtuJ
ngud; md;gHfd; vd;gtuhy; fz;Lgpof;fg;gl;lJ/"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
9. Therefore, the inquest report being the earliest document would
clearly show that P.W-1 Anbalagan was not accompanying the deceased/victim.
This apart, in the FIR as well as the date of chief examination, P.W-1 has
deposed that he was walking behind the deceased/victim in some distance.
Whereas, in the cross examination he has deposed that he came in a cycle, these
contradictions are material in nature and the other eye witness namely P.W-3
deposed that P.W-1 was coming behind the deceased victim. Therefore, both
the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-3 are artificial in nature and inspite of pointing
out these grave deficiencies, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
omitted to consider the defence of the petitioner/accused and therefore grievous
erred in returning the finding of guilt on the basis of the eye witnesses.
10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that in this case, not only P.W-1 and P.W-3 but also the owner of the
lorry was examined as P.W-11. He has confirmed the fact that his vehicle was
involved in the accident and he has deposed that a person had come and fell in
his lorry while the goods were being unloaded. He had further confirmed the
fact that it is the petitioner/accused who was on duty in the said vehicle. The
Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer has promptly arrested the
petitioner/accused and he was enlarged on bail and his presence in the spot has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
been duly confirmed. If the petitioner had reversed the vehicle in a normal
speed, even if he had not taken precaution, there would not be such a grave
crush injury, which would have happened to the deceased/victim.
11. The medical evidence in this case reveal that the entire abdomen
and chest have been crushed and brain also popped out of the head. The
manner of accident categorically by itself proves the culpable negligence on the
part of the petitioner/accused and therefore he would submit that the
conclusions of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court cannot be
found fault with.
12. I have considered the submissions of Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.A.J.Selvam, learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent. I have also gone
through the material evidence on record.
13. Though I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-3 eye witnesses have to be
discarded for the above said piece of evidence, in the inquest report coupled
with the contradictions as to whether he came by walking or by bicycle, still in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
this case, even discarding evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-3, the evidence of P.W-
11 coupled with the evidence of P.W-10 Inspector of Police/Investigating
Officer, the arrest of the petitioner/accused, the observation mahazar and the
rough sketch proves the accident, proves the fact that it was the
petitioner/accused who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and further the
manner of accident clearly entails the prosecution to invoke the maxim res ipsa
loquitur and the manner in which the crush injuries has been caused to the
deceased/victim while the vehicle came in reverse by itself proves the speedy
and negligent manner in which the vehicle was reversed by the
petitioner/accused and therefore even though the learned counsel for the
petitioner was successful in discreding/dislodging the evidence of P.W-1 and
P.W-3, still the finding of guilt by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
cannot be upturned for the said facts alone. Therefore, I hereby confirm the
conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 279 and
304A of IPC.
14. Now, coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the date of accident i.e., on
11.05.2007, the petitioner/accused was 36 years of age. Now, 15 years have
since passed by. The petitioner/accused is presently aged about 51 years, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
has not been convicted in any other offence either prior to the occurrence or
subsequent to the occurrence. He has got 2 girl children who aged about 15 and
10 years of age. He has since shown remorse to the incident and was also
arrested and released on bail on the same day. He has appeared before the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court and also is complying with the conditions after
this Court suspended the sentence.
15. Considering the above, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment imposed for both the offences from a period of two years rigorous
imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment respectively to a period of
fifteen days simple imprisonment for both the offences. The sentence shall run
concurrently. The fine amount is confirmed as such.
16. This Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed as indicated above.
25.01.2022
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
arb
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam.
2.The District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1258 of 2014
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
