Madras High Court
Kannan ... Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
Kannan ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.268 of 2001). ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment passed in
C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 02.02.2018, confirming the order passed
in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyoor, dated 05.11.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
ORDER
This Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
passed in C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III
Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 02.02.2018, confirming
the order passed in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dated 05.11.2015.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2001 at
about 11.30 am., on Nagercoil-Tirunelveli National Highways road
near Kavalkinaru Vilakku S.A.Raja Dental Hospital, the petitioner
drove his Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-74-C-1132 after
boarding 46 passengers in the goods carriage vehicle and turned
upside down, due to rash and negligent driving. Therefore, four
persons died, 5 persons sustained grievous injuries and 19 persons
sustained simple injuries. On the complaint, the respondent
registered the F.I.R in Crime No.268 of 2001 for the offences under
Sections 279, 337 (19 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A)(4
counts) against the petitioner herein. After completion of the
investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.34 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.57 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked.
4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 279,
337 (19 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) (4 counts) of I.P.C and
he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of
I.P.C; he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each (Rs.200 X 19
= Rs.3,800/-), in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment
for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C (19 counts), he was
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each (Rs.400 X 5 = Rs.2,000/-,
in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence
under Section 338 of I.P.C (5 counts) and he was sentenced to
undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each, in default to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rs.1,000 X 4 = Rs.4,000/-) for the offence
under Section 304(A)(4) of I.P.C (4 counts). The sentences shall go
concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal in C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the Appellate Court also confirmed
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that no witness had spoken that the petitioner drove the
Tempo in a rash and negligent manner. Though some of the
witnesses had deposed that the petitioner drove the tempo in a
speedy manner, it would not amount to rash and negligence. Some
of the witnesses also deposed that only in order to avoid head-on
collusion with the opposite lorry, the petitioner turned the Tempo on
his left-hand side and as such, he got upside down. Therefore, there
is no fault on the petitioner to cause the accident and as such, he is
liable to be acquitted. The accident had occurred due to
unacceptable, the lorry came from the opposite side and the same
was also categorically admitted by P.W.5. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the following Judgments:-
“(i) Nanjundappa and another Vs. The
State of Karnataka reported in 2022 SC 489.
(ii) Nachimuthu Vs. The Inspector of
Police reported in 2011 SCC Mad 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
(iii) Sentu Rudra Paul Vs. The State of
Tripura reported in Manu/TR/0378/2020.
(iv) Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in 2006 SCC Online DEL
1132.
(v) State of Karnataka Vs. Sathish
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493.
(vi) Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of
Maharastra reported in (1972) 4 SCC 758
and
(vii) Saravanan Vs. State reported in
Manu/TN/1988/2015.”
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the
prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that the petitioner only
drove the Tempo. It is a goods carriage vehicle. Even then, without
following the law and the road safety rules, the petitioner boarded
46 persons in the goods carriage vehicle and had driven the Tempo
in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. He had
driven the vehicle in a speedy manner and he had lost his control
and he has turned the vehicle upside down and four persons died
and so many persons sustained injuries. The motor vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
Inspector also deposed that the accident was not occurred due to a
mechanical fault. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved its
case and both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and
it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8.Admittedly, the petitioner had driven the Tempo
bearing Registration No.TN-74-C-1132 on 11.11.2001 at about
11.30 a.m from Nagercoil-Tirunelveli National Highways road near
Kavalkinaru Vilakku S.A.Raja Dental Hospital, in a rash and
negligent manner and turned upside down. It is a goods carriage
vehicle and without following the road safety rules and Motor
Vehicles Act, the petitioner boarded 46 persons in the goods
carriage vehicle. It is against the law and the petitioner was not
supposed to carry the passengers in a goods carriage vehicle. P.W.1
to P.W.4 categorically deposed that the petitioner had only driven
the Tempo in a speedy manner and he lost his control in the turning
of the National Highways Road. Therefore, he turned the vehicle
upside down and due to which four persons died and 42 persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
sustained injuries. The motor vehicle Inspector was examined as
P.W.32. He deposed that the vehicle was intact and the accident was
not occurred due to any mechanical fault. Therefore, the accident
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied
upon the Judgment in Nanjundappa and another Vs. The State of
Karnataka reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 489, wherein the
Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:-
“9. Here it would be useful to advert to the
dictum in the case of Syad Akbar Vs. State of
Karnataka1 in which this Court proceeded on the
basis that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu
would not apply to a criminal case as its applicability
in an action for injury by negligence is well known.
In Syad Akbar (supra), this Court opined: “29. Such
simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of
res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the general mode of
inferring a fact in issue from another circumstantial
fact is subject to all the principles, the satisfaction of
which is essential before an accused can be
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence
alone. These are: Firstly, all the circumstances,
including the objective circumstances constituting
the accident, from which the inference of guilt is to
be drawn, must be firmly established. Secondly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
those circumstances must be of a determinative
tendency pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should make a
chain so complete that they cannot reasonably raise
any other hypothesis save that of the accused's
guilt. That is to say, they should be incompatible
with his innocence, and inferentially exclude all
reasonable doubt about his guilt.”
10.It is true that in the case of circumstantial evidence,
there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating
such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt
should be the only reasonable inference from the facts. Whereas, in
the case on hand, there were eyewitnesses, who travelled in the
same Tempo and were deposed categorically that only because of
the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident had
occurred. Therefore, the prosecution had proved the negligence and
established direct nexus between the negligence of the petitioner
and the death of the victims. Therefore, the above Judgment is not
helpful to the case on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
11.Further, this Court respectively agreed with the
dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India that in
the absence of any evidence to prove rash and negligent, merely
driving the vehicle at high speed would not be sufficient to bring the
offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. Whereas in the case on hand,
there were witnesses and they categorically deposed that only
because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident
had occurred. That apart, there was no collusion by other vehicle.
The petitioner himself had driven the Tempo in a speedy manner
and lost his control in the turning of the National Highways.
Therefore, he turned the Tempo upside down and caused the
accident due to which four persons died and 42 persons sustained
injuries. The petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life. Therefore, both the
Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under
Sections 279, 337 (19 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) (4
counts) of I.P.C. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below and the
Civil Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
12.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the
petitioner in order to serve the remaining period of sentence.
17.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Valliyoor.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
