Madras High Court
Stanley vs The State on 6 April, 2023
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl RC No.1330 of 2017
Stanley ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
TIW West Police Station
Coimbatore
Cr.No.184 of 2010. ...Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.PC to allow the present Criminal Revision case upon setting aside
the judgment dated 30.12.2013 made in C.C.No.56 of 2011 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore and modified by the
lower appellate court by Judgment dated 02.07.2014 made in
C.A.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sridevi
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
Legal aid counsel
For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadharsana
Government Advocate
[Crl Side]
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the
judgement and order passed by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.12 of 2014 dated
12.07.2014, partly allowing the appeal by modifying the sentence
imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore,
made in C.C.No.56 of 2011 dated 30.12.2013, convicting the
petitioner for offence under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo two weeks
simple imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 304(A)
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
Thirumalraj was crossing the road from South to North and the
petitioner was driving a Eicher Mini Lorry from North to South and
when the vehicle turned, it hit the deceased who was crossing the
road and as a result, the deceased sustained head injuries.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that PW1 to PW3
had witnessed the incident and they immediately rushed to the spot
and they found that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries
and was lying unconscious. Immediately, the deceased was admitted
at Abirami Hospital. The Private Hospital directed the deceased to
be taken to the Government Hospital and the deceased was taken in
an Ambulance to the Government Hospital. Unfortunately, the
deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 3.30
p.m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
4. The complaint (Ex.P1) was given by PW1 on 07.07.2010
at about 16.15 hours before the Sub-Inspector of Police, R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore. On receipt of the complaint, an FIR was registered by
PW8 in Crime No.184 of 2010 for offence under Section 279, 304(A)
of IPC.
5. The investigation was taken up by PW8 and he went to
the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar
marked as Ex.P3 and the rough sketch marked as Ex.P6 in the
presence of witnesses. The investigation officer thereafter went to
the Government Hospital where the body of the deceased was kept
in the mortuary and he conducted the inquest in the presence of
the panchayatars and the inquest report prepared by him was
marked as Ex.P7. The investigation officer thereafter took steps to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
send the body for post-mortem and the post-mortem was conducted
by PW7. The post-mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P4 and the
following antemortem injuries were noted in the post-mortem
certificate.
On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura: Sub sealpal
contusion 10 x8 cm noted on left temporo occipital
region and 6 x 4 cm note on right occipital region.
Crack fracture 12 cm in length noted on left temporo
occipital bone. Diffuse sub dural and sub arachnoid
hemorrhages noted on entire brain skull base fracture
noted on left middle cranial fossa. Laceration 5 x 3 x
0.5 cm noted on the temporo occipital lobes of brain.
Other findings:-
-Pleural and Peritoneal cavities empty
-Hyoid bone Intact
-Heart Right side chambers contain about cc of fluid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
blood. Left side chambers empty. Coronaries patent.
-Stomach contains about 200 grams of partially digested
cooked rice particies mixed with leaves, no specific
smell, mucosa congested. Small intestine contains
about 20 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell,
mucosa congested.
-Lungs, Liver, spleen, Kidneys and Brain Cut section
congested
-Urinary bladder empty.
6. PW7 gave a final opinion to the effect that the deceased
appear to have died due to head injury.
7. The investigation officer arrested the petitioner on
08.07.2010 at about 19.00 hours and he was released on station
bail. Thereafter, the investigation officer on completion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
recording the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161(3)
of Cr.PC and after collecting all the reports including that of the
report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector marked as Ex.P2, completed
the investigation and filed the final report on 19.12.2010 before the
Trial Court.
8. The Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner and
issued copies under Section 207 of Cr.PC. The Trial on being
convinced with the materials placed before the Court framed
charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 279 and
304 A of IPC. When these charges were put to the petitioner, he
denied the same and pleaded not guilty.
9. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked
Ex.P1 To P8. The incriminating evidence that was collected during
the course of trial was put to the accused person, when he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.PC and he denied the
same as false.
8. The Trial Court on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution
has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly
convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated supra.
9. Aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the
Trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was heard
by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.12 of 2014.
The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence and after
considering the findings of the Trial Court, came to a conclusion
that there is no ground to interfere with the conviction of the
petitioner under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. However insofar as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
the sentence is concerned, the Appellate Court modified the
sentence insofar as the offence under Section 304A of IPC is
concerned and reduced the period of imprisonment to six months
simple imprisonment.
10. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision case has
been filed before this Court.
11. When the Criminal Appeal came up for hearing on
23.03.2023, this Court had passed the following order :-
Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on
07.03.2023, the non-bailable warrant was issued and
Mr.J.Suresh, Special Sub Inspector, and Mr.A.Anandan,
Special Sub Inspector, (Traffic Investigation Wing-West),
Coimbatore have produced Mr.Stanley (petitioner)
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
2.This Court directed the production of the
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not take
any steps to engage any counsel and the petitioner was
also enlarged on bail during the pendency of this criminal
revision and the case was dragging on.
3.The petitioner stated that he does not have the
financial wherewithal to engage a counsel and requested
this Court to appoint a legal aid counsel to appear on
behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner also undertook
that he will be present on the date of hearing without
fail. The petitioner further stated that he is now eking
his livelihood as an auto driver at Coimbatore Railway
Junction.
4.The non-bailable warrant issued by this Court is
recalled. Ms.Sridevi.S. No.17, 1st Street, Vallalar Nagar,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062 (Mobile
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
No.9500139531), is appointed as the legal aid counsel to
appear on behalf of the petitioner. Registry is directed
to prepare a copy of the entire papers pertaining to this
criminal revision and furnish the same to Ms.Sridevi.S.,
who has been appointed as the legal aid counsel to
represent the petitioner.
5.Post this case under the caption “for orders” on
06.04.2023. The petitioner shall be present before the
Court on 06.04.2023 at 10.30 am.
12. The matter was taken up for final hearing today and the
petitioner was also present before this Court. This Court heard
Ms.Sridevi, learned legal aid counsel, appointed by this Court and
Mr.V.J.Priyadharsana, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side]
appearing on behalf of the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
PW1 to PW3 could not have witnessed this incident and there are
discrepancies in their evidence. The learned counsel also pointed
out to the rough sketch which was marked as Ex.P6 and submitted
that the petitioner was driving the vehicle from north to south and
when the vehicle was turning, the deceased without noticing the
vehicle was crossing the road and as a result, was hit by the
vehicle. The learned counsel submitted that this accident did not
take place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the
petitioner and hence, contended that the judgement and order
passed by both the Courts below requires the interference of this
Court. As an alternative submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has already undergone
incarceration for nearly 77 days and the family of the deceased has
also received the compensation from the Motor Accident Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
Tribunal and hence, requested this Court to consider modifying the
sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing
on behalf of the State submitted that both the Courts below have
appreciated the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and have come to a
conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner. The learned Government
Advocate submitted that the findings of both the Courts below does
not suffer from any perversity and hence, there is no scope to
interfere with the judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the
Appellate Court had taken into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and had modified the sentence insofar as
the offence under Section 304A of IPC is concerned and the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court does not require any further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
modification by this Court. Accordingly, the learned Government
Advocate sought for the dismissal of this Criminal Revision Case.
15. This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made on either side and also perused the materials available on
record.
16. Both the Courts below have placed reliance upon the
evidence of PW1 to PW3, who were examined on the side of the
prosecution as eye-witnesses. All the three eye witnesses have
stated that they are friends and they were talking near the Kurichi
Silver Jubilee, which is situated at Pollachi Main Road. They have
further stated that they saw the deceased crossing the road from
south to north and at that point of time, the vehicle which was
driven by the petitioner from north to south turned and dashed
against the deceased. PW1 to PW3 have consistently given this eye
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
witness account. There are some minor discrepancies with regard
to where PW1 to PW3 were standing at the time of the incident.
The incident had taken place in the year 2010 and PW1 to PW3
came before the Court to give evidence in the year 2013. Hence,
by passage of time, it is possible that they will not be able to give
the exact details and there will be some discrepancies in their
evidence and the Court is expected to see if such discrepancy in the
evidence given by PW1 to PW3 really goes to the root of the matter.
Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of PW1 to
PW3 and have come to the conclusion that the vehicle came from
North to south and had turned with the same speed towards east
and the deceased who was crossing the road from south to north
was hit by the vehicle. It is true that the rough sketch gives an
indication that the deceased was hit almost near the place where
the vehicle was turning.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
17. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court
must kept in mind that this is not a second appeal filed before the
Court and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence. The
revisional jurisdiction must confine itself to see if the findings of
the Courts below suffers from perversity. Hence, the evidence being
capable of a different interpretation can never be a ground to
interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction. As such, this Court
does not find any perversity in the findings of both the Courts below
based on the appreciation of evidence of PW1 to PW3.
18. The evidence of the Postmortem doctor read with the
postmortem report shows that the deceased had died due to head
injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is also clear from the
report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that there were no
mechanical defects that is attributable to the vehicle that was
driven by the petitioner. This evidence also lends strength to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
eye witness account of PW1 to PW3.
19. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the findings of both the Courts
below insofar as the conviction of the petitioner under section 279
and 304A of IPC.
20. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, it has been
brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already
suffered incarceration for nearly 77 days. That apart, the parents of
the deceased had filed claim petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and compensation was awarded. The police officer
who was present before this Court, on enquiry, informed this Court
that the parents of the deceased received the compensation of a
sum of Rs.5,92,140/-. The petitioner has also deposited the fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
amount and the same is evident from the order passed by this Court
on 13.10.2017, when the petitioner was released on bail.
21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and also of the fact that the petitioner is now working as a
Auto Driver and is eking his livelihood from the income he earns by
driving the auto and also of the fact that the petitioner has already
undergone incarceration for 77 days, this Court is inclined to modify
the sentence. The sentence of imprisonment is confined to the
period already undergone by the petitioner and the fine imposed by
the Court below to the tune of Rs.1,500/- is confirmed and this fine
amount has already been paid by the petitioner.
22. In the result, this Criminal Revision case is partly
allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The bail bond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
executed by the petitioner shall stands cancelled. Before drawing
the curtain, this Court appreciates Ms.S.Sridevi, legal aid counsel
who assisted this Court and made effective submissions on behalf of
the petitioner. This Court directs the Secretary, Legal Aid Service,
Madras High Court to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Ms.S.Sridevi,
towards appearance on behalf of the petitioner in this case.
06.04.2023
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl RC .No.1330 of 2017
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
To
1. The V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore
Crl RC No.1330 of 2017
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
