Madras High Court
Sugumar vs The State Represented By on 16 September, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12668 of 2022
Sugumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Arakkonam. ... Respondent
Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction imposed by the order
dated 14.06.2022 in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and
sentence in C.C.No.276 of 2006 dated 03.11.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Arul
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 14.06.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 03.11.2020 passed in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
2. The respondent police registered a case initially against two
persons, namely the driver and owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, the case
was closed as against the owner of the vehicle. Then, the case was tried
against the accused, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-23-Q-7373. After investigation, laid a charge sheet and the same
was taken on file in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District. After trial, the learned Judicial
Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C
and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and
sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence
under Section 337 I.P.C (21 counts) for each count and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
338 IPC (24 counts) for each count and sentenced him to undergo six
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A)IPC (10
counts) for each count.
3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Magistrate, the accused has filed an appeal before the
Sessions Court and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 and
the case was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Ranipet, Vellore District. The II Additional District and Session Judge,
after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considered the
materials, re-appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal, by
confirming the judgment of the trial court. Challenging the said judgment of
dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this
Court.
4.Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that none
of the witnesses have spoken about that the accident had occurred only due
to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and all the witnesses
have stated that after hearing heavy sound from the tyre of the bus, the bus
fell into the river. He further submitted that through the narrow bridge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
only one vehicle can pass through at a time and the vehicle cannot go with
high speed. It can move only with moderate speed. Further he would submit
that the accident could not have taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus. Even in the prosecution side, it is stated
that the vehicle was not properly maintained and that be the case, when the
owner of the vehicle himself got discharged from the case, the driver alone
is not responsible to that accident and there is no fault on the part of the
revision petitioner. Since out of 55 passengers, 45 of them got injured,
some of them sustained simple injury and some of them sustained grievous
injury and nearly 10 passengers were died, the Trial Court without any
substantiative evidence, based only on sympathy ground, convicted the
petitioner. The First Appellate Court also without re-appreciating the entire
evidence, simply endorsed the view of the learned Trial Judge, confirmed
the judgment of the trial court.
5. He further submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector one who
conducted the inspection soon after the occurrence, was not examined
before the Court. The officer one who has not conducted the inspection was
examined as P.W.26. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
consideration. The prosecution has not stated anything about why they have
not examined the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle. During
cross examination, all the witnesses have clearly spoken that they have not
seen the occurrence since they were sleeping at the time of accident. He
further submitted that driver of the vehicle himself sustained injury. The
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that
absolutely there is no material to prove that the the accident had happened
only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The trial
court failed to appreciate the evidence, convicted the petitioner and the
appellate court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence, simply
endorsed the views of the Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the appeal, which
warrants interference of this Court.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
would submit that some of the passengers clearly stated that the accident
had happened due to negligence on the part of the driver/revision petitioner.
Ex.P61, Inspection Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector clearly shows
that the accident happened not due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. In
order to substantiate the same, he was examined as P.W.26. Further, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
submitted that P.Ws.1, 13 and 17 have spoken about the manner of the
accident. Due to the accident in which 21 persons sustained simple
injuries, 24 persons sustained grievous injuries and 10 persons lost their life.
The Trial Court rightly appreciated the entire evidence and found the
accused guilty for the offence under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A)
I.P.C., The Appellate Court also confirmed the same. Hence he prayed for
the dismissal of the Revision Petition.
7. Heard Mr.V.Arul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
8. In this case, the accident was admitted. Due to the accident, some
passengers were sustained injuries and some of them succumbed to death.
The only dispute is the manner in which the accident had taken place.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner accident had not
happened due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner.
According to the prosecution, accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the revision petitioner. The trial court found that the
accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
vehicle. P.W.1 has also stated that the accident had happened due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. P.W.13 also averred the
same. P.W.17 has stated that the bus came with high speed and broken the
barricade and fallen from the bridge. Ex.P.61 report of the motor vehicle
Inspector also clearly shows that the accident had happened not due to any
mechanical defect. Some of the witnesses those who have traveled in the
bus at the time of accident have spoken that the accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a speed brake in the
bridge and the bridge is also very narrow and at a time, more than one
vehicle cannot be passed through the bridge and therefore accident would
not have happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
revision petitioner. As stated by the revision petitioner if the speed brake is
on the bridge and the bridge is very narrow, the revision petitioner is not
driving the bus for the first time on the bridge and it is a routine route for
him. If he drives the vehicle very cautiously with moderate speed,
definitely, accident could not have happened. The prosecution has proved
that the petitioner drove the said vehicle at the time of accident in a rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
negligent manner. Due to that accident, ten persons were succumbed to
death and some persons were sustained injuries.
9. Scope of the revision court is very limited and it cannot act as trial
court or the appellate court to re-appreciate or revisit the entire evidence,
unless there is a perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. Both the
Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and this Court does not find
any perversity in appreciation of the evidence and there is no merit in the
revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal
Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
16.09.2022
mfa
Index:yes/No
Internet:yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranipet, Vellore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Arakkonam.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Arakkonam.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa
Crl.R.C.No.1135 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12668 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
