Madras High Court
V.Ramadoss vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 12.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.10790 of 2018
V.Ramadoss ... Petitioner
vs.
The Inspector of Police
Fort North Traffic Investigation,
Police Station, Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397
r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records and set the judgment dated
31.07.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.74 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli District confirming
the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C. No.25 of
2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli District dated 19.07.2017 and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Veilmuthu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case is directed against the conviction imposed
as against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli District
in Crl.A.No.74 of 2017 confirming the order passed in C.C. No.25 of 2016 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli
District dated 19.07.2017
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2015 at about 13.00hrs
while the injured was driving his TVS XL Super two wheeler bearing Reg.No.
TN 48 T 0525 from Woraiyur to Chatram Bus Stand in the east direction
towards Tajmahal petrol bulk , the petitioner drove his TNSTC bus bearing
Reg.No. TN 55 N 0785 from west to east direction in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the injured, thereby he sustained injuries and his
both legs were amputated.
3. On the complaint lodged, the respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.201 of 2015 for the offence under sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
After completion of investigation, the respondent filed the final report and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C. No.25 of 2016 by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
4.On the side of the prosecution they had examined six witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W. 6 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and no material object
was marked. On the side of the accused neither oral nor documentary
evidence was let in.
5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found the petitioner guilty for the offence under sections under sections 279
and 338 of IPC and sentenced to petitioner to undergo 6 months simple
imprisonment for the offence under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-
indefault to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under
section 338 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an
appeal in C.A. No.74 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge,
Tiruchirappalli. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction imposed by the
trial Court. Hence, the present revision has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that because of
the rash and negligent driving of the injured, the bus dashed against him
and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the bus was driven in a rash
and negligent manner. Infact P.W.5 the conductor of the bus has
categorically deposed that the bus was stopped in the signal and thereafter
the bus was started by the petitioner where the two wheeler after filling up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
petrol in the petrol bulk suddenly came out from the petrol bulk and as such
the bus dashed against the two wheeler. Therefore there is contributory
negligence on both side. Therefore he prayed for acquittal.
7. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that there
were eyewitnesses to prove the case of prosecution. P.W. 1 to P.W.3 have
categorically deposed that only because of the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the bus, the accident had happened and as such, one person
sustained injuries. Therefore, both the Courts below have concurrently
convicted the petitioner for the offences under sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. A perusal of the rough sketch would show that the injured after
filling the fuel from the petrol bulk, which is situated in the corner, came out
from the petrol bulk and when the petitioner drove his bus after stopping in
the signal , hit against the two wheeler of the injured due to which he
sustained injuries and his both legs got amputated. Further, the Motor Vehicle
Inspector's investigation reveals that the accident had not happened due to
any mechanical fault, whereas the conductor of the bus was also examined as
P.W.5. He categorically deposed that the bus stopped in the signal and after
signal the bus was proceeding towards east side and the injured came out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
from the petrol bulk. Therefore, on both sides there was negligence due to
which the incident had occurred.
10. Now the petitioner also retired from service and the injured was
aged about 79 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the sentence may be modified into compensation.
11. In view of the above, the conviction imposed on the petitioner is
confirmed and considering the age of the petitioner the sentence imposed on
the petitioner for the offence under section 279 and 338 of IPC is hereby
modified into compensation. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) to the credit of C.C.
No.25 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirapalli
on or before 17.07.2023. On such deposit being made, the injured or the
legal heirs of the injured are permitted to withdraw the same by filing proper
application. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said
amount on or before 17.07.2023, the respondent is at liberty to secure the
petitioner and subject him to serve the remaining period of sentence as
imposed by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
12. This Criminal Revision case is partly allowed to the extent indicated
above. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.06.2023
aav
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli District
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirapalli,
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
aav
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.665 of 2018
12.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
