Madras High Court
Karunanidhi vs State By on 19 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
Karunanidhi,
S/o.Venugopal ... Petitioner
Versus
State by
Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police Station,
Vellore Dt.
(Crime No.777 of 2007) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the
conviction imposed in the judgment dated 30.10.2014 made in
C.A.No.297 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Addl. District and
Sessions Court, Ranipet confirming the conviction imposed in the
judgment dated 08.12.2010 made in C.C.No. 141 of 2008 on the file of
learned District Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot and to set
aside the same.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 140 of 2008
based upon the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent police in Crime No.777 of
2007 for the alleged offence under Sec.279 and 304 (A) I.P.C. on the
basis of complaint given by one K.Krishnamoorthy, driver of lorry
bearing Regn. No. TSH -1949.
2. According to prosecution, the petitioner, being driver of bus
bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N 2786 in route No.505 driven by him in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the backside of the milk lorry.
Due to that, the conductor, who was sitting in the front seat of the bus
sustained injuries and succumbed to death on 20.12.2007. Based upon
that, the F.I.R. was lodged and he was prosecuted in C.C.No. 141 of 2008
on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
prosecution proved the charges against the accused by examining the eye-
witnesses in order to prove the negligent act of the petitioner. On relying
the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court sentenced him to
undergo one year 3 months simple imprisonment for the alleged offence
under Sec.304-A I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction, he preferred a
criminal appeal in C.A. No. 297 of 2010 on the file of Addl. District and
Sessions Court, Coimbatore, wherein the appellate judge independently
analysed the evidence on record and documents, concludes that there is a
rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner and confirmed the
findings of the trial judge. Challenging the concurrent findings, the
petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that there is
absolutely no material to show that the petitioner's act was either rash or
negligent and mere driving the vehicle in a high speed as alleged by the
respondent police is not sufficient to prove the offence under Sec.304(A),
besides there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of
P.W.1 and the F.I.R. also cannot be used as a substantiated evidence. But,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
the courts below failed to appreciate all these legal aspects, erroneously
convicted the accused, as such, is not maintainable and prayed to set
aside the findings.
4. By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
submitted that at the time of alleged accident, being a transport driver, the
petitioner driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the back side of milk lorry and caused the accident. At that time,
the conductor, who was sitting in the front side of bus crushed to death
and the same was proved by examining eye-witnesses as well as M.V.
Report and proved the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which needs
no interference by this court.
5. Considering both side submissions and on perusal of records, it
reveals that the petitioner herein is the driver of transport bus and on the
date of alleged accident, he driven the vehicle when the conductor is
sitting in the front side of the bus. As per the prosecution, he driven the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
of milk lorry, thereby the accident was occurred. To prove the said
accident, the driver of milk lorry was examined as P.W.1. Admittedly, he
stated that on hearing the noise, he get down from the lorry and seeing
that the accident was happened and the conductor was succumbed to
death. Apart from that, the lorry also lost the control and get down on the
left side of the pit. So, immediately after the accident, the driver of
vehicle, who is in the scene of occurrence, was examined as P.W.1 to
prove the occurrence. Furthermore, on seeing the damages caused to both
vehicles, M.V. Report of both vehicles are marked as Ex.P3 and P4 and
witness P.W.8 has clearly stated that due to the said accident, front side of
bus was damaged as well as back side of milk lorry was also severely
damaged and mahazar witness P.W.8 also reveals the place of occurrence
and after that accident, how the vehicles were found place in the
occurrence place. Even though no other independent witness, P.W.1 was
examined on the side of prosecution, but as rightly pointed out by the
respondent, he is a right person to speak about the occurrence, because
the driver of bus dashed against milk lorry, who driven the vehicle at the
time of alleged occurrence. Hence, the prosecution proved the negligent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
act of the driver through P.W.1 and Ex.P3 and 4 and the same was rightly
appreciated by the courts below, which needs no interference.
6. On considering the facts and circumstances, the courts below
convicted the accused to undergo one year simple imprisonment, but at
that time, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that now the driver
was retired, but he faced disciplinary proceedings and suffered with other
ailments. Hence, he prayed to modify the sentence. Considering the said
circumstances, this court is inclined to modify the sentence from the
period of one year to the period of three months. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
19.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rpp
To
1. Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police Station, Vellore Dt.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
Crl.R.C.No.1300 of 2014
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
