Madras High Court
N.Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 4 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2023
N.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
The Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore - 641 018
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sulur Police Station,
Coimbatore - 641 402
Crime No.658 of 2014 ...Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment of the V Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in C.A.No.122 of 2020 dated
28.07.2022 in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner / appellant
herein confirming the Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sulur
made in S.T.C. No.166 of 2017 dated 11.02.2020
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
ORDE R
The present Revision has been preferred as against the Judgment
of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in
C.A.No.122 of 2020 dated 28.07.2022 thereby confirming the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur
made in STC No.166 of 2017 dated 11.02.2020 for the offences under
Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2014, at about 12.30
p.m., in Covai to Trichy main road, near Kathirmill Higher Secondary
School, injured was riding his motor cycle, at that time, the petitioner, who
is the driver of Government Corporation Bus had driven the bus in a rash
and negligent manner and while overtaking the vehicle/two wheeler of the
injured, the petitioner hit the two wheeler, therefore, the victim fell down
and sustained injury in his right hand.
3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.6 and marked documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.7. On the side of the
petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
4. On a perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it is seen that
the petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and with
respect to Section 279 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one
week and for Section 338 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
three months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one week. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was
also dismissed, thereby the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court was confirmed.
5. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is the Government
Corporation Bus Driver. The eye witness was examined as P.W.1 and the
injured was examined as P.W.2. No one was examined to corroborate the
evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Even according to P.W.2/injured, when he
was proceeding in his two wheeler, the petitioner drove the bus and while
overtaking, hit the two wheeler, hence he fell down and sustained injury in
his right hand. Therefore, the injured might not have seen the bus,
whether, it was driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner or
at high speed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
6. Further, on a perusal of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, it
would reveal that no damage was caused to the bus, therefore, the
prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner. That apart, the prosecution also failed to prove that
gross negligence had taken place. Though P.W.1 is the eye witness to the
occurrence, he is the close relative of the injured and he deposed that after
having a chat with injured/P.W.2, the injured/P.W.2 had proceeded in front
of his two wheeler and the petitioner drove the bus and hit P.W.2.
Therefore, P.W.1 also might not have seen the bus, whether it was driven
by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. Though injuries
sustained by P.W.2 is classified as 'grievous' one, the prosecution failed to
cross examine the Doctor, who treated P.W.2. There is no evidence to
show that P.W.2 sustained any fracture.
7. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC cannot be
sustained and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Judgment of the
learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in
C.A.No.122 of 2020 dated 28.07.2022 in confirming the Judgment passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
by the Judicial Magistrate, Sulur in S.T.C. No.166 of 2017 dated
11.02.2020 is set aside.
In the result, the present Criminal Revision is allowed.
04.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking order
ssd
To
1. The V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sulur
3. The State of Tamilnadu
The Public Prosecutor
Coimbatore - 641 018
4. The Inspector of Police,
Sulur Police Station,
Coimbatore - 641 402
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,
ssd
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 05:29:05 pm )
