Madras High Court
Pominathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
Pominathan ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Pasuvanthanai Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
Crime No.61 of 2011.
... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to
the judgment by convicting the petitioner passed by the learned II-
Additional District Sessions Court, Tuticorin, dated 27.08.2018 in
Crl.A.No.116 of 2017 by modifying the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti,
in C.C.No.142 of 2011 dated 10.08.2017 and set aside the same as
illegal and acquit the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
ORDER
The revision has been filed to set aside the the judgment
passed by the learned II-Additional District Sessions Court,
Tuticorin, in Crl.A.No.116 of 2017, dated 27.08.2018, by modifying
the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, in C.C.No.142 of 2011 dated
10.08.2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2021, at
about 05.00 p.m, when the deceased was riding his motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.TN-01-AK-6373 from Pasuvanthanai to Kovilpatti
main road on extreme left side of the road by following the traffic
rules, the petitioner drove his Taras Lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-59-AB-3232 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
deceased's motorcycle. Therefore, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot.
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in
Crime No.61 of 2011. After completion of the investigation, they
filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti, and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.142
of 2011 for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
4.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section
304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo 1 year Simple
Imprisonment.
6.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal in C.A.No.116 of 2017 before the II Additional District
Sessions Court, Tuticorin. The Appellate Court also confirmed the
order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and also
imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, he was directed to serve
further 2 months Simple Imprisonment. Hence, the present
revision.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
P.W.1 is one of the eye-witness. He is none other than the brother of
the deceased. He did not whisper about P.W.4 also travelled with
P.W.1 as billion rider. Another eye-witness was examined as P.W.2,
who was also riding his motorcycle behind the deceased's
motorcycle. He also did not whisper about P.W.1 and 4. He further
submitted that there was contradiction between the FIR and enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
report. The deceased's body was found in right side of the road,
whereas the accident taken place left side of the road. It shows that
only because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the
said accident had happened. He further submitted that in fact, the
deceased did not possess any license to drive two wheeler. He
further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 55 years. As
such, he seeks relief under the probation of good conduct as
contemplated under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
8.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1, 2 and
4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They had ride their
respective motorcycles behind the deceased's motorcycle. When the
deceased was proceeding towards Kovilpatti main road from
Pasuvanthanai, the petitioner drove his Taras Lorry in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the deceased's motorcycle. Therefore, the
deceased died on the spot. All the eye-witnesses have also
corroborated each other deposition. Hence, both the Courts below
rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A)
of IPC. Hence, it does not require any interference and prays for
dismissal of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
10.It is seen that on 17.04.2011, at about 05.00 p.m,
after celebrating Car festival, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 and the
deceased were proceeding to Kovilpatti to Pasuvanthanai by their
respective motorcycles. When the deceased was proceeding in front
of P.W.1 and P.W.2's vehicle, the petitioner drove his Taras Lorry in
the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
deceased's motorcycle. Therefore, he fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is corroborated by P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.4. The Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as
P.W.5. He categorically deposed that the accident had not happened
due to any mechanical fault. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly
convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A) of
I.P.C., and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Hence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed
by the Courts below.
11.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner never involved in any accident before
the present occurrence and as such, seeks relief under Section 360
of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
12.Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to modify the sentence alone by invoking the provision
under Section 360 of Cr.P.C and also by imposing compensation to
be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
13.In view of the above, the conviction passed by the
trial Court for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C is hereby
confirmed. In so far as the sentence for the offence under Section
304(A) of I.P.C is concerned, it is modified as compensation. Hence,
the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakhs (Rupees
One Lakh Only) to the credit of C.C.No.142 of 2011 on or before
10.07.2023, failing which, the sentence imposed by the Court below
is hereby restored and the respondent is directed to secure the
petitioner and send him for serving remaining period of sentence.
On such deposit being made, the legal heirs of the deceased are
permitted to withdraw the same.
14.With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case
is disposed of.
02.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
To
1.The II-Additional District Sessions Court,
Tuticorin.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti,
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pasuvanthanai Police Station,
Tuticorin 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.537 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dss
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2018
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
