Madras High Court
Thangavel ... Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
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.753 of 2017
Thangavel ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Lalpettai Police Station,
Karur District.
(Crime No.182 of 2014) ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside
the order in Crl.A.No.69 of 2017, dated 12.09.2017 on the file of
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai, Karur
District in C.C.No.90 of 2014, dated 02.05.2017 and allow the
above Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
ORDER
This Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment in
Crl.A.No.69 of 2017, dated 12.09.2017 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, partly modifying the order in
C.C.No.90 of 2014, dated 02.05.2017 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai, Karur District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2014 at
about 06.45 p.m., the deceased was waiting on the Northern side of
Trichy to Karur Main Road near Veeravalli Bus stop to cross the
road. The petitioner had driven his car bearing Registration
No.TN-49-AP-7601 in a rash and negligent manner from West to
East and hit the deceased. Therefore, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and died. On the complaint lodged by P.W.1, the
respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.182 of 2014 for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. After completion of
the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same
has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.90 of 2014 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai, Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked.
4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one
month Simple Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence
under Section 279 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one year
Simple Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment for the offence
under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.69 of 2017 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Karur and partly modified the same by
confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and set aside
the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C and modified the sentence for
the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. Hence the present
Revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that no witness had spoken about the rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner herein. There was a Vinayagar procession
and after the procession when the deceased was trying to cross the
road that too in the bye pass road without seeing the vehicle on
either side, unfortunately, the petitioner hit the deceased. Even
assuming that the petitioner had driven the car in a speed manner,
it does not amount to a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under Section
304(A) of I.P.C., when no one had spoken, that the petitioner had
driven a car in a rash and negligent manner. Though the motor
vehicle inspection report revealed that the accident was not
happened due to mechanical fault, and it was not marked through
the vehicle inspector, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs.
Sathish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the respondent would submit that the prosecution had
examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 in which P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
eyewitnesses. They categorically and cogently deposed that when
the deceased was standing on the Northern side of the road that too
in a mud, the petitioner had driven a car in a rash and negligent
manner and hit her. Therefore, she sustained grievous injuries and
died. Though the motor vehicle inspection report was not marked by
the motor vehicle inspector, it is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution, since the prosecution proved its case beyond any
doubt. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8.When the deceased was standing left-hand side of the
road to cross the bye-pass road, the petitioner had driven his car
and hit her. Therefore, she sustained a head injury. Immediately,
she was taken by the petitioner in his car along with P.W.1 to
Kulithalai Government Hospital. She was referred to Trichy
Government Hospital and as such, she was again taken to
Government Hospital, Trichy. She was declared dead due to the
injuries sustained by her. P.W.1 to P.W.5 were eyewitnesses to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
occurrence, and they cogently deposed that when the deceased was
standing on the extreme left side of the road, that too on the mud
to cross the road, the petitioner had driven his car in a rash and
negligent manner and hit her. Therefore, she sustained head injuries
and died. It is true that high speed does not amount to negligence
or rashness. In the absence of any material on record, no
presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking
the maxim “res ipsa loquitur'. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 would
show that when the deceased was standing on the extreme left-
hand side of the road, she was hit by the petitioner's vehicle.
Therefore, it can be presumed that the petitioner had driven his car
in a rash and negligent manner. Further, except P.W.1, P.W.2 to P.W.
5 are independent witnesses, and they do not need to give false
evidence as against the petitioner. Therefore, both the Courts below
rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced the petitioner for
the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. In so far as the sentence
is concerned, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence for the
offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C from six months to three
months as imposed by the Appellate Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
9.Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts
below is confirmed. The sentence for the offence under Section
304(A) of I.P.C is modified from six months to three months as
imposed by the Appellate Court. The period of detention already
undergone by the petitioner/accused will be set off against the
sentence. 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 Principal Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Kulithalai,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.753 of 2017
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
