Madras High Court
Siva vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 June, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 27.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 242 of 2019
Siva ... Petitioner / Petitioner
vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Cr.No. 141 of 2009) ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to Judgment passed by the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamuthi in
C.C.No.87 of 2010 dated 12.01.2017 and confirming the Judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District
Sessions Court, Paramakudi dated 27.02.2019 in C.A.No.5 of 2017 and
set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
Judgment passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Kamuthi in C.C.No.87 of 2010 dated 12.01.2017 in confirming
the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, dated 27.02.2019 in
C.A.No.5 of 2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2009, when both the
deceased were grazing their cattle adjacent to Kamuthi to Parthibanoor
Road, the accused had driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and
after breaking the milestone which was laid on the left side of the road,
dashed against the deceased. Therefore, they sustained grievous injuries
and died. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime
No.141 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) (2
counts). After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed the
final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the accused, no one was
examined and no document was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found him guilty for the offence under Section 304A of IPC (2 counts)
and sentenced him to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for each
count and the imprisonment shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.5 of 2017 on the
file of the learned Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi and the
same was also dismissed on 27.02.2019 and thereby, confirmed the order
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the present
revision.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
absolutely no evidence to prove that the petitioner had driven his car in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased persons.
None of the witnesses had identified the petitioner as a driver of the car.
No independent witness was examined in order to prove the charges.
Though the prosecution stated that the car hit the milestone and
thereafter, hit the deceased, even then the car did not suffer any damage
at all as per the Motorcycle Vehicle Inspector's Report. Therefore, he
prayed for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that in order to bring the charges to prove the case, the
prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
The husband of the first deceased was examined as P.W.1, who was also
along with the deceased 1 and 2 and was grazing their cattle. The
petitioner had driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the milestone and thereafter, dashed against the deceased 1 and 2.
Therefore, they sustained grievous injuries and died. The evidence of
P.W.1 was also corroborated by the other witnesses. The Motorcycle
Vehicle Inspector's Report also revealed that the accident had not
happened due to any mechanical default. The Motorcycle Vehicle
Inspector's Report was marked as Ex.P.3. Therefore, both the Courts
below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 304 A of IPC (2 counts) and it has not required
any interference by this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
8.P.W.1 and the deceased 1 and 2 were grazing their cattle adjacent
to Kamuthi-Parthibanoor Road on 07.12.2009. The accused had driven
his car on the same road from Kamuthi to Parthibanoor and he had hit the
milestone and thereafter, hit the deceased 1 and 2. In order to corroborate
the evidence of P.W.1, one of the deceased's mother was examined as
P.W.4. She categorically deposed that she visited her mother's house on
07.12.2009 and thereafter, the second deceased was taken by the first
deceased to graze their cattle along with P.W.1. The car was subjected for
Motorcycle Vehicle Inspection and the Motorcycle Vehicle Inspector
opined that the accident had not happened due to any mechanical default.
That apart, in the front side bumper and right side front lamp of the
vehicle, water pump and other, damages were caused to the car due to
accident. Therefore, it revealed that the car hit the milestone and
thereafter, dashed against the deceased 1 and 2 herein. P.W.1 also
categorically deposed that only because of the rash and negligent driving
of the petitioner, the accident had occurred. Therefore, both the Courts
below rightly convicted the petitioner and it does not require any
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the victim's family in
order to serve the remaining period of sentence.
10.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the conviction imposed by the Courts below
for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC. However, the sentence of
two years Simple Imprisonment is modified as compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be paid in favour of the legal
heirs of both the deceased on or before 21.08.2023, by way of deposit to
the credit of the trial Court in C.C.No.87 of 2010 on the file of the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamuthi. On
such deposit, the legal heirs of P.W.1 and one of the mother of the
deceased are permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest, if
any. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, the sentence
imposed by the trial Court is hereby restored without further reference to
this Court and the respondent is directed to secure the petitioner to serve
the remaining period of sentence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
27.06.2023
sji
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1.The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamuthi.
2.The Learned Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi
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.242 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
sji
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.242 of 2019
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
