Madras High Court
V.Ganesan vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 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.452 of 2018
V.Ganesan ... Petitioner
vs.
The Inspector of Police
Sivagiri Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
Crime No.626 of 2007 ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397
r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 by judgement dated
05.01.2018 by which confirming the conviction and sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagiri in CC No.7 of 2008 by the judgement dated 17.02.2015 and set aside
the judgement of the Courts below and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case is directed against the conviction imposed
as against the petitioner by the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 confirming the judgment passed in
CC No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Sivagiri.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2004 at 4.20 pm., in
the north of Vadugapatty Village on Rayagiri Vadugatty main road, the
accused drove his omni car bearing Reg. No. TN 72 E 8446 from west to east
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. After
dashing against the deceased the car went to some extent and got capsized
and the persons who travelled in the omni car also sustained injuries.
3. On the complaint lodged, the respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.626 of 2007 for the offences under sections 279,337,338 and
304(A) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed the final
report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C. No.7 of 2008 by the
trial Court.
4.On the side of the prosecution they had examined twelve witnesses
as P.W.1 to P.W. 12 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and no material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
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 offences under sections 279,337,338 and
304 (A) of IPC and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in
default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
section 279 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in
default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
section 337 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
section 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo one month
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 304(A) of IPC.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A. No.17
of 2015 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli. 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 P.W. 1 and
P.W.2 who were eye witnesses to the said occurrence turned hostile and they
failed to support the case of prosecution. The person who was riding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
cycle behind the deceased was examined as P.W.7 and he deposed that when
the deceased was walking from east to west the petitioner drove his car
negligently and dashed against the deceased, therefore he sustained injuries
and died. However in the complaint given by P.W7 he has stated that when
the deceased was walking from west to east the petitioner drove his car
behind him and dashed against him, therefore he sustained injuries and died.
Thereafter the car got capsized and two persons who were travelling in the
car also sustained injuries. These contradictions are vital to the case of
prosecution. That apart no one have deposed that the petitioner had driven
his car in a rash and negligent manner. Further road condition was worst and
as such while he applied sudden brake the car got capsized and due to which
two persons got injured. When the deceased all of a sudden crossed the road
the incident had happened and as such it was not happened due to rash and
negligent driving of the petitioner and he further submitted that P.W.7 could
not have witnessed the occurrence, since contradictions there are
contradictions in his own statement and he failed to support the case of
prosecution. Infact other witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 did not even depose
about the presence of P.W.7 in the scene of occurrence. Though P.W.7 lodged
complaint, he had not admitted the deceased in the hospital and one Ponraj
had only admitted the deceased in the hospital and even then the said Ponraj
was not examined. Therefore he prayed for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
7. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that both
the courts below have concurrently convicted the petitioner and it does
not warrant any interference by this Court. The petitioner drove his car
in a rash and negligent manner and that too in a high speed while he was on
the extreme right of the road hit behind the back of the deceased and as
such he sustained injuries and died. Minor contradictions would not disprove
the case of prosecution, therefore he seeks dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. On 08.10.2004 at 4.20 pm., when the deceased was walking from
east to west on the extreme left hand side of the road and in the same
direction the petitioner drove his case in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against him due to which he sustained injuries and died. That apart
the petitioner drove his vehicle in a high speed and after dashing against the
deceased the entire car got capsized , due to which two persons sustained
injuries who travelled along with the petitioner. After hearing the huge sound
they came to know that the accident had happened, whereas P.W.3,P.W.4 and
P.W.7 who were witnesses to the occurrence have categorically deposed that
only because of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner the car dashed
against the deceased, due to which he sustained injuries and died. The
contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
helpful to the defence side since that contradictions are no way connected
with the incident. The first contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that P.W3 and P.W.4 did not whisper about the presence of
P.W.7 and another contradictions is that P.W. 1 and P.W.2 who travelled in the
car failed to support the case of prosecution. A perusal of the evidence
reveals that while hearing the noise that the petitioner after hitting the
deceased had got capsized due to which they sustained injuries. Further
Motor Vehicle Inspection Report also reveals the fact that the incident had
not happened due to any mechanical fault. The prosecution had proved its
case beyond any reasonable doubts that the petitioner only drove his car in a
rash and negligent manner. and caused the accident. This Court finds no
illegality or infirmity in the order passed by both the courts below.
10. The learned counsel for the the petitioner would submit that
considering the age of the petitioner and his family the sentence may be
modified into compensation.
11. In view of the above, the conviction imposed on the petitioner is
confirmed and the conviction is reduced to the period already undergone by
the petitioner, considering the age of the petitioner the sentence imposed on
the petitioner for the offence under sections 279,337,338 and 304(A) of IPC
is hereby modified into compensation. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the credit of
C.C. No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Sivagiri on or before 17.07.2023. On such deposit being made,
the legal heirs of the deceased 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.
12. This Criminal Revision case is partly allowed to the extent indicated
above.
12.06.2023
aav
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri
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.452 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
aav
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.452 of 2018
12.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
