Madras High Court
Gnanamani vs State Rep.By on 6 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
Gnanamani ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Gandarvakottai Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.100/2013) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram, Pudukkottai in Crl.A.No.1 of
2017 by judgment dated 21.12.2017, by which confirming the conviction
and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Pudukkottai in C.C.No.150 of 2013 by the judgment dated
05.04.2016 and set aside the judgments of the Courts below and acquit
the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram,
Pudukkottai in Crl.A.No.1 of 2017 dated 21.12.2017, by which
confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in C.C.No.150 of 2013 by the
judgment dated 05.04.2016.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2013, at about 05.30
pm., when the deceased along with Paciyaraj and Sudhagar in his motor
cycle were proceeded to Kantharvakottai to Pattukkottai main road, near
Mattankal Perumal's Aarspathi Thoppu, from the opposite side, the
petitioner had driven his van bearing Reg.No.TN49AW9097 in a rash
and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler. Therefore, all the
three persons sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. After
registering FIR, the respondent completed investigation and filed final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
report and the same has been taken on file by the trial Court for the
offence under Section 304(A) (three counts) as against the petitioner.
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.
17 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the side of the accused, no one
was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the
offence under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo six
months simple imprisonment and each go concurrently. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also
dismissed by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the
present revision.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. There is
contradiction between P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.1 and P.W.3 did
not even whisper about the presence of P.W.2. Therefore, they were not
eye witness to the occurrence. They are interested witnesses and as such,
the prosecution failed to prove its case. The petitioner had 30 years of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
experience in driving and accident was not occurred due to his rash and
negligent driving. The accident had occurred only because of negligent
driving of the deceased. In fact, in the two wheeler, the deceased
travelled along with two other persons as triplets, which is against the
traffic rules. The petitioner had driven his vehicle in the left hand side of
the vehicle. Though passengers were very much available in the van, the
prosecution failed to examine any passengers, who travelled in the van.
P.W.2 had categorically admitted that there was public in and around the
place of occurrence and even then, the prosecution did not examine any
general public to prove its case. The petitioner is first time offender and
as such, he seeks relief under Probation of Offenders Act and also under
Section 360 Cr.P.C.
5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent would submit that three persons were died
on the spot only because of the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner. It is main road proceed from Kandharvakottai to Pattukottai,
in which, the petitioner had driven his vehicle on the right hand side of
the road and hit the two wheeler. Therefore, all the persons, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
travelled in the two wheeler sustained grievous injuries and died on the
spot. Eye witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.3 and they
categorically deposed that the petitioner had driven his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and also in high speed and hit the two wheeler.
They also categorically identified the petitioner as driver of the van.
Therefore, the prosecution proved its case and the Court below rightly
convicted the petitioner and it does not warrant any interference by this
Court.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
record.
7.On 25.05.2013, at about 05.30 pm., when the deceased along
with two other persons travelled in two wheeler from Kantharvakottai to
Pattukottai main road, near Mattankal Perumal's Aarspathi Thoppu, from
western side to eastern side, the petitioner had driven his van from the
opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and also in high speed and
dashed against the two wheeler. Therefore, all the three persons fell
down and sustained grievous injuries and died. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
also travelling behind the two wheeler in their respective two wheelers.
They were eye witness to the occurrence and deposed in support of case
of the prosecution. According to them, they were proceeding in the same
direction and the petitioner had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Therefore, they fell down
and sustained injuries. All three persons died on the spot.
8.The Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as P.W.9 and he
deposed that the accident was not happened due to any mechanical
default of the van. P.W.1 to P.W.3 also deposed that the petitioner only
drove the van. The motor vehicle inspection report was marked as Ex.P.
7. On perusal of Ex.P.7 also revealed that right hand side front side of
the van got damaged due to the accident. The rough sketch, which was
marked as Ex.P.11 also revealed that the accident was happened on the
right hand side of the road. Therefore, the prosecution categorically
proved its case beyond any doubt and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
9.However, considering the age of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to reduce the sentence as the period, which was already
undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction for the offence
under Section 304(A)(3 counts) imposed by the Court below is hereby
confirmed and sentence of six months for each count is reduced to the
period, which was already undergone by the petitioner.
10.In the result, this criminal revision case is partly-allowed.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram, Pudukkottai
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai
3.The Inspector of Police,
Gandarvakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai 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.247 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
gns
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.247 of 2018
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
