Madras High Court
Selvam vs State Rep. By on 31 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
Selvam
... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvarur Town Police Station,
Tiruvarur Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
(Crime No.294/2011)
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the judgment dated 10.11.2016 made in C.A.No.11/2015 on the file of
District Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur confirming judgment of conviction dated
23.01.2015 made in C.C.No.12/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvarur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jotheeswaran
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment of
the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur dated 10.11.2016 made in
C.A.No.11 of 2015 which confirmed the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruvarur dated 23.01.2015 made in C.C.No.12 of 2013.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2011 at about 7.30.a.m the
revision petitioner/accused, who is the driver of the bus belonging to the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN-49-N-1643, was
driving the bus at Tiruvarur-Tanjavur by-pass. When he was coming near a
bridge and turning there, he handled the bus in a negligent manner and
consequently the bus got capsized. Due to which, one passenger died and five
passengers sustained grievous injuries and fifteen passengers sustained simple
injuries.
3. On the complaint given by PW1, who was one of the passengers of the
bus, PW33-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.294 of 2011 of
Tiruvarur Town Police Station under Sections 279, 337(15 counts), 338(5
counts) and 304(A) IPC and prepared FIR (Ex.P37). He took up the case for
investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared the Observation
Mahazar(Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P38) in the presence of the witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
He also went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.
He enquired the witnesses, who got injured and were taking treatment in the
hospital and recorded their statements. On 28.06.2011 he arrested the accused
and sent him for remand. After examining the rest of the witnesses and the
Doctor(PW22), who conducted postmortem and obtaining postmortem
certificate (Ex.P33), he went on transfer. Subsequently, PW34-Inspector of
Police, who succeeded him, had continued the investigation. He enquired the
doctors, who had treated the injured and got wound certificates. After
completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the
offences under Sections 279, 337(15 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) IPC.
After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the materials
available on record, the accused was questioned. Since the accused pleaded
innocence, trial was conducted.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution 34 witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW34 and 40 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to
P40. When the incriminating materials found on the prosecution evidence were
put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same. On the side
of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
5. At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence available
on record, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and
sentenced him as under:-
Rank of the accused Charges Findings of the Punishment
Trial Court
279 IPC Guilty To pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default Simple Imprisonment
for one month
337 (15 Counts) Guilty To pay a fine of Rs.300/- for
IPC each count (Rs.4500/- in
total) in default Simple
Imprisonment for one month
for each count
338 (5 counts) Guilty To pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
Single Accused IPC for each count (Rs.5000/- in
total) in default Simple
Imprisonment for three
months for each count
304(A) IPC Guilty To undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- in default Simple
Imprisonment for three
months
6. The Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner/accused in C.A.No.11 of
2015 was also dismissed on 10.11.2016. Aggrieved over that, the
petitioner/accused filed the present Criminal Revision.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
entire materials available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused,
who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident; it was also not proved that the
bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner; the condition of the road was
very bad and these factors were not properly investigated and brought before
the Court. Since the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence
on record and found the accused guilty, this Criminal Revision should be
allowed.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the accused is a Government bus driver and there is
no dispute that he was the driver of the bus involved in the accident; the
witnesses, who had travelled in the bus have stated clearly that the revision
petitioner/accused had driven the vehicle in a negligent manner, while turning it
and caused the accident; the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the
vehicle has certified that there was no mechanical defect found in the vehicle.
Hence, the judgment of the Court below does not suffer from any factual or
legal infirmity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
10. Point for Consideration:
"Whether the finding of the guilt of the revision petitioner
for the offence under Sections 279, 337(15 counts), 338 (5
counts) and 304(A) IPC is fair, proper and legal?"
11. The fact that the revision petitioner is the driver of the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation and the bus involved in the accident also belongs to
the TNSTC, were not denied. But the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that none of the materials available on the side of the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused, who had driven the
bus at the relevant point of time. PW8 is the conductor of the bus involved in
the accident. Despite he turned hostile, his evidence would reveal that at the
time of the accident, the bus was driven by the revision petitioner and at that
time PW8 was working as the Conductor.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that
there is no negligence on his part and it was due to the bad condition of the
road, which contributed the accident. However, the Investigation Officers, who
were examined as PW33 and PW34 have stated in their evidence that in the
place of occurrence, no pits on the road were found. The accident had occurred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
at a turning and there was no other vehicle, which came either in the opposite
side or on the side the vehicle involved in the accident. Since the injured and
the deceased were the passengers of the bus there cannot be any negligence on
their part to cause the accident. The revision petitioner being the regular driver
of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation should have been aware of the
road and he should have taken due care while turning the bus in that particular
route. The place of occurrence is on the fly over. The ring road below was at
30 feet depth. Hence, while handling the bus at such a risky point, the driver of
the bus ought to have exercised utmost care in order to avert any accident more
particularly, to see that the bus does not stop and fall down on the downside
road. The accused, being a Government bus driver would have been aware of
the features of the road also. Had he exercised due care, the accident would not
have happened.
13. In order to prove the rash and negligence, it is not necessary that the
driver should have driven the bus in a high speed manner. It is sufficient to
prove before the Court that the driver has not exercised reasonable care in a
given situation to avoid the accident. In the case on hand, the features of the
road and the evidence of the eye witnesses including the evidence of the
conductor of the bus would show that it was the revision petitioner, who had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
driven the bus. It has been already pointed out that no other vehicle had crossed
at the time of the accident. The bus was plying on the flyover at a height of 30
feet and because of the negligence of the driver, the bus got slipped and fell at a
depth of 30 feet. The learned Trial Judge and Appellate Judge had appreciated
the evidence in a proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused. In my
view, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference.
In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The judgment dated
10.11.2016 made in C.A.No.11/2015 on the file of District Sessions Judge,
Tiruvarur is hereby confirmed.
31.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
To
1.The District Sessions Judge,
Tiruvarur.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvarur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruvarur Town Police Station,
Tiruvarur Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.1666 of 2016
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
