Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs State Rep By on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
Balasubramanian
... Petitioner
-Vs.-
State rep by
Inspector of Police,
Pudusatram Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
.. Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to Criminal
Appeal No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chidambaram confirming the sentence passed in
C.C.No.177 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Portonovo dated 02.03.2017 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the concurrent
findings of the Courts below holding the petitioner herein guilty of
causing five deaths and two grievous injuries by his rash and negligent
driving of the passenger bus.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2006, at about 04:00
PM, while the petitioner was driving the passenger bus from Cuddalore to
Chidambaram on the Cuddalore-Chidambaram Main Road, near
Silambimangalam, dashed against the omnivan, driven by one Murugan
and caused death of five persons traveling in the omnivan including the
driver and grievous injury to the two other passengers. The case was
registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, 338 IPC (2 counts) and 304A
IPC (5 counts).
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses,
marked 21 Exhibits and 3 Material Objects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
4. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence found the accused
guilty and convicted him
(i) to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offences under Section
279 IPC;
(ii) to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offences under Section
337 IPC;
(iii) to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment (2
counts) for each count and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- for each
counts, in default two months simple imprisonment for the
offences under Section 338 IPC;
(iv) to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment (5
counts) for each counts and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for each
counts, in default six months simple imprisonment for the
offences under Section 304A IPC;
The period of sentence was ordered to run consequently. As a result, the
trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
total period of 36 months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentences, an appeal was filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
before the learned Additional District Judge, Chidambaram, who on re-
appreciating the evidence, confirmed the trial Court judgment and
dismissed the appeal.
6. In the revision, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
argued that there is a mis-appreciation of evidence regarding the
negligence. He further contended that though the accident was caused by
the driver of the Omnivan/Murugan, the trial Court had shifted the guilt on
the driver of the passenger bus/petitioner herein. The Ex.P.11/sketch
indicates that the bus driven by the petitioner proceeding from the North
to South and the omnivan proceeding from South to North had colluded
on the Western side of the road. However, through the ocular evidence of
the witnesses, particularly PW8 and PW9, who are the by-standers and
independent witnesses, it has been categorically established that the
collusion had occurred on the Eastern side of the road, which indicates
that the omnivan driver had driven the van on his extreme right side
causing the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)
would submit that a stray reference about the direction of the spot of
accident in the cross examination will not nullify the overwhelming
evidence on the side of the prosecution established through the Ex.P11.
The PW4 is the de fact complainant and PW5 is the driver of the car,
which followed the omnivan carrying the relatives of the persons who are
traveling in the omnivan. The evidence of PW4 and PW5, the Motor
Vehicle Inspectors and the damages noted on the bus as well as omnivan
clearly indicates that the damage to the omnivan is on the right side and
the damage to the bus is on the left side. In the Cuddalore to Chidambaram
road, which is about 22 feets, the passenger bus instead of keeping left had
moved to the right and had rashly hit the omnivan, which has proceeding
towards Chidambaram in the Northern direction.
8. This Court, on perusing the evidence of PW4 and PW5,
particularly the Motor Vehicle Inspector report, fully convinced that the
accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner herein,
who has not kept 'left' of the road while proceeding but has hit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
omnivan, which was following the road rule and moving towards the
Northern direction keeping left. Particularly, PW5 had clearly stated that
the omnivan, seeing the bus coming rashly on the extreme right side of the
road, had moved towards the left and half of the vehicle was on the mud
road and half of the vehicle was on the thar road. Despite moving towards
left the accident had occurred. This clearly indicates the negligence of the
petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court confirms the judgment of
conviction of the Courts below.
9. As far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the Court
below had convicted the petitioner, who was found guilty for the offences
under Sections 338 IPC (2 counts) and 304A IPC (5 counts) and ordered
that the period of imprisonment shall run consequently, which otherwise
means that the petitioner herein should be in prison for 6 months in respect
of the offences under Section 338 IPC (2 counts) and 30 months in respect
of offences under Section 304A IPC (5 counts) and totally he should
undergo 36 months of rigorous imprisonment.
10. This Court is of the view that the said period of sentence can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
modified as to run concurrently. As a result, the period of sentence for the
offence under Section 338 IPC (2 counts) and 304A IPC (5 counts)
together shall be 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount and
the default sentence shall stand unaltered.
11. With these modification, this Criminal Revision Case is Partly
Allowed.
12.10.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
nsa
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chidambaram
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Portonovo
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pudusatram Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
nsa
Crl.R.C.No.1613 of 2017
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
