Ravi vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 14792 Mad

                                                                               Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated : 05.09.2022

                                                           CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

                     Ravi                                                               .. Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                     State Represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Madurantakam Police Station,
                     Madurantakam,
                     Kanchipuram District
                     (Cr.No.385/2007)                                                 ..Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
                     read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment
                     passed in Crl.A.No.8 of 2013 dated 24.11.2015 by the Principal District
                     and Sessions Court confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.351 of
                     2007 dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                     Madurantagam, Kanchipuram District.


                                      For Petitioner       :     Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar

                                      For Respondent       :     Mr.N.S.Suganthan
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                    1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015



                                                    ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

concurrent findings of the Courts below in a motor accident case.

2. According to the prosecution, on 08.07.2007 at about

11.45 a.m., a passenger bus bearing registration No.TN 21 H 4577 from

Uthiramerur to Madurantagam proceeding in the wrong direction has hit

an unregistered Bajaj Pulser Motorcycle driven by one Umapathy. The

rider of the two wheeler sustained grievous injury and taken to

Government hospital, Chengalpattu, but he died on 21.05.2007, 3 days

after the accident. A complaint was given by one Arunachalam, who was

examined as PW.1. According to his evidence, while the bus proceeding

from Kanchipuram to Madurantagam near Melavalampettai mosque, the

two wheeler rider was following a lorry when the lorry gave way to the

bus coming on the opposite direction, the two wheeler rider tried to over

take the lorry, at that time, the bus driven by the accused coming in the

opposite direction hit the two wheeler and caused the accident.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

3. The prosecution has examined thirteen (13) witnesses as

PW.1 to PW.13 and marked eleven (11) Exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The

Courts below taking note of the fact that the offending bus was

proceeding in the wrong direction thereby caused the accident.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted

that the Courts below had not taken note of the fact that in that particular

road normally vehicles used to come in an opposite direction, they have

substituted their journey along with the highway. To that effect, the

deposition of PW.2, PW.9 and PW.11 has relied upon. Wherein the

witnesses in the cross examination had admitted that though it is a one

way traffic road, vehicles used to come in the opposite direction also.

Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

accident admittedly occurred when the deceased tried to over take the

lorry and he had no valid driving licence. The two wheeler which he was

driving is also not a registered one. These facts would clearly show the

negligence on the part of the deceased.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State

would submit that the Conductor of the bus, who was examined as

PW.13, clearly admits that the bus was driven in the wrong direction. The

other witnesses for the prosecution also clearly deposed that the bus was

driven in the opposite direction which he was not supposed to be done.

Therefore, the absence of the driving licence of the victim or non

registration of the two wheeler will not exonerated the offence of the

petitioner.

6. This Court, on considering the evidence and the

submissions made by the respective counsels, finds that the accident had

happened while the victim tried to over take the lorry. No doubt, no

driving licence is produced. However, the rider of the two wheeler would

not have expected the bus in the opposite direction prohibited in a one

way traffic road. The evidence of witnesses which indicates that usually

the vehicle riders are used to come in a wrong direction to avoid

travelling along the national highways and take the right turn and

proceed for the service road. Such act of traffic violation per se indicates

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

that the negligence on the part of the bus driver, who is the petitioner

herein. The Courts below had rightly appreciated the witnesses of

prosecution, particularly PW.13, who is the Conductor of the offending

bus. The bus which was proceeding from Uthiramerur to Madurantagam,

it has to cross the National Highways to reach Madurantagam. For that,

the prescribed route is to drive the bus towards Chengalpattu and take the

right turn to reach the other side of the road and proceed to

Madurantagam. In order to avoid such deviation, the bus driver had

decided to take an opposite direction, which is a wrong route. The

Motorcyclist did not expect the heavy vehicle on the wrong side coming

in the opposite direction had fallen prey to the act of negligence.

7. The reasoning of the Courts below for convicting the

accused is fully justifiable based on the evidence. As far as the sentence

is concerned, the Court has imposed 3 months Simple Imprisonment for

committing the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C., and 6 months

Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 304 A of I.P.C. The

period of sentence ordered to run concurrently.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

8. This Court, taking note of the fact that the violation of the

road rule by driving the bus on the wrong direction, warrants conviction

and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower

appellate Court.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

05.09.2022

Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No

rpl

To

1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.8, Coimbatore

3. Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing (West) Police Station, Coimbatore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

rpl

Crl.R.C.No.1277 of 2015

05.09.2022

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