Madras High Court
K.Karthik vs State By on 16 September, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
K.Karthik
... Petitioner
-Vs.-
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Sembanar Kovil Police Station,
Nagapattinam District
(Crime No.432 of 2007)
.. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment made in
C.A.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam dated 07.09.2015 confirming the judgment passed in
C.C.No.163 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Myladuthurai dated 23.04.2012 and acquit the accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Easan
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below in the
motor accident case, wherein the petitioner had been found guilty for the
offences under Section 304A and sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment, a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default one month simple
imprisonment.
2. The points canvassed before this Court are that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, who claim to be the witnesses to the
occurrence, are wholly unreliable and the motor vehicle inspector, who
has examined the offending bus, has given testimony, that is
contradictory to his report. If his evidence on oath has to be taken as
truth, then the accident should have occurred, when the two wheeler hit
the bus on its right side. However, in his report, which is marked as
Ex.P4, indicates that the offending bus got damaged on its front left
bumper.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
damage to the front left portion of the bus indicates that the two wheeler
came in the wrong direction and has invited the accident. The telltale
evidence found in Ex.P4/motor vehicle inspector report belies the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who has spoken that the deceased
was coming from the East to West on the extreme left of the road.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further
submitted that if the evidence of the prosecution witness is true, then the
damage to the offending bus ought to have been caused on its front right
side of the body.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2007 at about 03.00
p.m, while deceased Venkatesan was riding his TVS Super Excel
Motorcycle at on the extreme left side of the Sembanar Kovil–Akkur
Main Road, near Madapuram TELC School, from East to West, the
Government Passenger bus, which was driven by the petitioner herein
rash and negligently, had hit the TVS Super Excel Motorcycle, causing
the fatal accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
6. On perusal of the sketch, marked as Ex.P6, it does not indicate
the width of the road. The TELC School, mentioned as the scene of
accident, is on the Southern direction. As pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, if the deceased was riding his two wheeler on
the extreme left side of the road, the damage ought to have been on the
front right side of the bus. Since the damage is on the front left side of
the bus, obviously there is a doubt that the two wheeler have come on the
wrong direction.
7. The PW4/Panneer Selvam, who claims to be one of the eye
witnesses to the occurrence, has deposed that the bus came very fast
negligently and without horning. He claims that he along with his friend,
Ramalingam was walking along the said road, when the accident
occurred. However, in his previous statement to the police, he has not
report about that. Even otherwise, the accident has occurred at 03:00
p.m., and as per the prosecution, it is a collusion of two vehicles.
8. The case of the prosecution is that the two wheeler had followed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
the road rule and the rider was proceeding towards West on the extreme
left and the offending bus was proceeded towards East. If it is so, the
damage, as found in the Ex.P4 on the front left portion of the bus is
improbable.
9. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond doubt
and accused has demonstrated in this case that there is no negligence on
his part, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the
judgment of the Courts below is set aside. The fine amount paid, if any,
shall be refunded to the petitioner herein.
16.09.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
nsa
To
1.The District Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Myladuthurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J.,
nsa
Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2015
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
