M.Sridhar vs The State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 4535 Mad

                                                                                      Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED :         08.03.2022

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                     Orders Reserved On      Orders Pronounced On
                                         25.02.2022                08.03.2022

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

                     M.Sridhar                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     The State rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Kodavasal Police Station,
                     [Crime No.276 of 2014]                                     ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in Crl.Appeal No.12
                     of 2016 dated 16.12.2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Court,
                     Thiruvarur by confirming the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.316 of
                     2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.
                                          For Petitioner    :       Mr.K.M.Subramaniam
                                          For Respondent    :       Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor



                     1/12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017


                                                             ORDER

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.316 of 2014 was convicted by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, by judgment dated 09.08.2016 for

the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, sentencing him to undergo one

year Simple Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment. The learned District Sessions

Judge, Thiruvarur, by judgment dated 16.12.2016 dismissed the appeal filed

by the petitioner/accused by confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision petition is

filed.

2.The respondent examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8 during the trial. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined

and no documents were marked.

3.The gist of the case is that on 26.07.2014, at about 8.45 a.m., the

deceased Subbiah, father of P.W.1, riding in a two wheeler, viz., TVS Super

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

Excel bearing registration No.TN 49 U 1518 was proceeding in the west to

east direction in Pudukudi road. At that time, a vehicle, namely, TATA

Magic Maxi Cab bearing registration No.TN 51 AA 5005 came from east to

west direction dashed against the said Subbiah, who got injured. Thereafter,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 took him to Government Hospital, Thiruvarur and he was

referred for further treatment at Government Hospital, Thanjavur where he

succumbed to the injuries. On 26.07.2014, P.W.12 received information

from the Hospital, he reached hospital where the said Subbiah was in an

unconscious state, hence statement was recorded from P.W.1 and

complaint/Ex.P1 was received. Based on the complaint/Ex.P1, FIR was

registered in Crime No.276 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 279 and

337 of IPC. Thereafter, P.W.12 visited the scene of occurrence, examined

the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, prepared observation

mahazar and rough sketch. On 28.07.2014, P.W.12 received the

information about the death of the said Subbiah and thereafter alteration

report was filed. P.W.13 took up the further investigation, examined the

witnesses, conducted inquest and sent the body for postmortem. In the

meanwhile, on 30.07.2014, the accused appeared before the Police Station

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

and surrendered. He was arrested and produced before the learned

Magistrate and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in this

case. The Trial Court, on examination of the witnesses and documents

found the petitioner guilty, convicted him and the Lower Appellate Court

confirmed the conviction as stated above.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 26.07.2014 at 8.45 a.m.,

complaint/Ex.P1 was lodged at about 10.00 p.m. with considerable delay,

for which no reason given. He further submits that in the complaint the

petitioner was not a named accused and there is no explanation as to how

the petitioner was identified. Further, the FIR in this case reached the Court

belatedly. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 are projected as eye witnesses in this

case, P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased, P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of

the deceased and P.W.6 is a neighbour who are all closely related and

known to the deceased. He further submits that P.W.1 and P.W.2 admits

that after hearing the noise, they rushed to the accident spot, P.W.6 admits

that after hearing the noise he saw the accident and hence, all the three

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

witnesses are not witnesses to the occurrence proper. P.W.9, Motor Vehicle

Inspector inspected the TATA Magic Maxi Cab vehicle bearing registration

No.TN 51 AA 5005 on 28.07.2014, which is two days after the accident and

there is no explanation as to what happened in between, likewise, TVS

Excel Super bearing registration No.TN 49 U 1518 was produced for

inspection only on 07.08.2014. In the motor vehicle reports, namely, Ex.P4

and Ex.P5, it is stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical

defect. Further, P.W.9 admits that the driving license, permit, insurance for

TATA Magic Maxi Cab was produced and with regard to vehicle rode by

the deceased, license, registration certificate and insurance not produced.

Admittedly, the deceased was of the age 76 years and he did not have any

driving license. He further submits that in the observation mahazar and

rough sketch, it is recorded that the accident took place near the centre

division of the road and there is no reason as to why the TVS Excel Super,

proceeded in the middle of the road, no investigation conducted in this

regard. It is the case of the petitioner that the rider of TVS Excel Super

suddenly attempted to take a turn from the middle of the road and he is the

cause for the accident. He further submitted that none of the witnesses have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

stated that the petitioner driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

From the rough sketch, it is seen that the house of P.W.1 is situated far away

from the place of occurrence and no person near the scene of occurrence

were examined as witness in this case. These vital facts were not

considered by the Courts below. He further submitted that the Trial Court

gave its own explanation that since the petitioner had not made any

objections for he being arrayed as accused. Further submitted the

ownership of the vehicle will not automatically make a person liable to be

prosecuted and for the purpose of availing accident claim, the petitioner was

falsely implicated in this case.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on

the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 took

the victim to the hospital, P.W.6 confirms that he saw P.W.1 and P.W.2

near the accident spot, he fetched auto and sent the injured along with them

to the hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were in the hospital providing

medical care to the injured and further, the injured was referred for further

treatment to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur where P.W.1 and P.W.2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

accompanied the injured. P.W.12 confirms that he received accident

information from the Government Hospital, Thanjavur, thereafter he went to

the hospital, hence, the delay in giving the complaint is given. P.W.12 on

receipt of the complaint visited the scene of occurrence, examined the

witnesses, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2, rough sketch/Ex.P7 in the

presence of P.W.7 and P.W.10, after the death of the victim, alteration

report/Ex.P8 was prepared, thereafter inquest conducted and request for

postmortem was made, P.W.8 conducted the postmortem and issued

Postmortem Certificate/Ex.P3. P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who

examined both the vehicles, namely, TATA Magic Maxi Cab and TVS

Excel Super and gave Inspection report, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, with reason that

the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He further submitted

that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses who confirmed that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner. Further, the Trial

Court on analysing the evidence and materials produced convicted the

petitioner, the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same. Hence, he

sought for dismissal of this revision petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,

it is seen that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 are the projected eye witnesses to the

accident. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased, P.W.2 is the daughter-in-

law of the deceased, P.W.6 is the neighbour and their presence were spoken

by each of them. P.W.1 admits that it was the Police who identified the

petitioner as the driver, P.W.2 and P.W.6 did not state anything about the

petitioner driving the TATA Magic Maxi Cab the other witnesses, namely,

P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are all in the nature of hearsay witnesses. The

Trial Court giving its own reason that the petitioner not made any objection

when he was arrayed as accused cannot be countenanced. It is for the

prosecution to prove that the petitioner was the Driver of the vehicle during

the accident. P.W.9, the Motor Vehicle Inspector confirms that the

deceased had no driving license and the TVS Excel Super vehicle was

without any documents. Further from the rough sketch/Ex.P7, it is seen that

the accident took place near the middle of the road, no reason given as to

why TVS Excel Super was in the middle of the road and the accident

occurred in the middle of the road, i.e. TVS Excel Super was proceeding

from west to east direction and the TATA Magic Maxi Cab was coming

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

from east to west direction. From the Motor Vehicle report in respect to

TVS Excel Super, viz., Ex.P5, it is seen that front wheel and fork got bent

and damaged, this damage probably due to the sudden turn attempted by the

deceased. Had it been head on collision, the damage to the TVS Excel

Super vehicle could have been more severe. The windshield of TATA

Magic Maxi Cab was broken as could be seen from Motor Vehicle

Report/Ex.P4, this could be due to sudden application of break and there is

no damage to the vehicle. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the

petitioner was the driver of the vehicle on the date of occurrence and

petitioner driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased

was an elderly person, aged about 76 years, without license came to the

middle of the road and took a sudden turn, to avoid the same the petitioner

applied sudden break, collision occurred, the deceased is the reason for the

accident. Further, the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond all

reasonable doubt that the petitioner caused the accident due to his rash and

negligent driving.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the order

passed in Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2016 dated 16.12.2016 by the District and

Sessions Court, Thiruvarur, confirming the order of conviction passed in

C.C.No.316 of 2014 dated 09.08.2016 by the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Thiruvarur and the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the criminal

revision petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is hereby acquitted

from all charges.

08.03.2022 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

To

1.The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kodavasal Police Station

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Pre-delivery order made in Crl.R.C.No.255 of 2017

08.03.2022

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