Madras High Court
Azhagiri vs State Rep.By on 11 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.727 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.727 of 2023
Azhagiri .... Petitioner
Versus
State Rep.by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Taluk Police Station,
Tirupattur,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.30 of 2011) .... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5 of
2018 dated 10.06.2020 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore @
Tirupattur in confirming the order of conviction dated 27.02.2018 passed in
C.C.No.156 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.A.Sanjay Prasanna
for M/s.Deepanuday
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the concurrent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
findings of conviction rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur
in C.C.No.156 of 2013, which was confirmed by the appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupattur,
for the offences punishable under Sections 297, 337 (13 counts), 338 (8 counts)
and 304A (4 counts) of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.01.2011, the petitioner
was driving a private bus bearing registration No. TN 30 H 3344 in a rash and
negligent manner on the Salem National Highways near korati petrol bunk. He
lost his control of the vehicle and collided with a Tavera car bearing
registration number TN 23 BZ 6825, which was coming from the opposite
direction. Due to the said accident, a First Information Report was registered in
Crime No.30 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 297, 337 (13 counts), 338
(8 counts) and 304A (4 counts) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the
same has been taken cognizance before the trial Court.
3. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.29 and marked thirty-six
(36) documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. On the side of the accused, no witnesses
were examined and no documents were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 297of I.P.C., and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months; for the offence
under section 337 (13 counts) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months for each count; for the offence under section 338 (8
counts) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months
for each count; for the offence under Section 304A (4 counts) of IPC, he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for each count. All the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the
same was dismissed, confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed
by the trial Court. Hence the present revision case.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the charges, as no witnesses had stated that the
petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligence manner. The basic
requirements to convict a person under section 304 A of IPC are absent in this
case. Though the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses to support their case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Crl.R.C.No.1069 of 2011 held in the case of Vijayendran Vs. State by
Inspector of Police. In which, this Court held that the death of a person should
have been caused by a rash and negligent act of the accused. The crux of the
offence under section 304 A IPC is commission of a rash and negligent act.
Mere fast driving does not constitute an offence under section 304 A IPC. He
further submitted that though the prosecution examined 29 witnesses, none of
them identified the petitioner as the person who was driving the bus at the time
of the accident.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the deposition of
PW.25, who is none other than the son of one of the deceased, Chennian. In his
evidence, PW.25 deposed that his father was riding a cycle and was about to
cross the road when the petitioner, in an attempt to avoid hitting him, swerved
the vehicle to his right side and collided with the vehicle coming from the
opposite side. Therefore, the accident did not occur due to any rash or negligent
act on the part of the petitioner. He also relied upon the Motor Vehicle
Inspection Report, which states that the left front side of the bus sustained
damage due to the impact. The bus had directly collided with the vehicle
coming from the opposite direction, which also sustained damage on its right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
front side. If the accident had occurred due to a vehicle hitting the left side of
the bus, then the damage would have been consistent with that scenario.
However, in the present case, the damage pattern shows a direct frontal
collision. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove
the charges framed against the petitioner. Despite this, both the Courts
convicted the petitioner for all the charges, which is legally unsustainable.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent police submitted that several prosecution witnesses have
clearly stated that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
The witnesses deposed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high
speed and collided with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction.
Therefore, it amounts to negligent driving as per the settled legal principles.
9. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgement of this
Court in Crl.R.C.No.438 of 2018 dated 20.10.2022 in the case of Sakthivel
Kumar Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police. He further submitted that
though PW.25 deposed that his father was riding a bicycle and was crossing the
road when the accident occurred, the wife and another son of the deceased
Chennian namely PW.20, PW.21 and nephew PW.22, categorically deposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
that the deceased Chennian was travelling as a passenger in the bus driven by
the petitioner and that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident and later
succumbed to them. Hence, the testimony of PW.25 is hearsay witness and
cannot be relied upon to discredit the consistent evidence of the other
witnesses.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted
that though the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined, his report was
marked through the Investigating Officer. The report clearly establishes that the
accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, it
is clear that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving
of the petitioner, which resulted in the death of four persons and injuries to 21
others. Hence, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly convicted
the petitioner. The concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any interference
by this court.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner was driving the bus bearing registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
No. TN 30 H 3344 on 21.01.2011 at around 15:40 hours on the Salem National
Highway near korati petrol bunk. At the same time, a Tavera car bearing
registration No.23 BZ 6825 was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the
accident, 21 persons sustained serious injuries and four persons died.
13. On perusal of the depositions, no witness has stated that the
petitioner, without any valid reason, suddenly turned the bus to the left and
collided with the oncoming vehicle. In fact, to avoid the accident, the driver of
the Tavera car turned to his right side. As a result of the impact, the front
portion of both vehicles sustained damage. Seven persons, who were travelling
in the car sustained grievous injuries and one person travelling in the bus
sustained serious injuries and later died. Several others also suffered injuries
due to the impact.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the petitioner did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent
manner. Even assuming that the petitioner drove the bus at a high speed, it
would not, by itself, amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning
of Section 304 A IPC. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charge under Section 304A IPC. In this regard, the learned Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
Advocate (Crl.Side) relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2012 9
SCC 284 in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajathan, in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as follow:
“(A) Rash and negligent driving
Rash and negligent driving has to be examined
in light of the facts and circumstances of a given
case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen
in isolation. It must be examined in light of the
attendant circumstances. A person who drives a
vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for
the act as well as for the result. It may not be always
possible to determine with reference to the speed of a
vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and
negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal
conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow
speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount
to ‘rash and negligent driving’ within the meaning of
the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the
legislature in its wisdom has used the words ‘manner
so rash or negligent as to endanger human life’. The
preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the
manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven
either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or
negligent driving should be such as to endanger
human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is
attracted.
‘Negligence’ means omission to do something
which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the
considerations which ordinarily regulate human
affairs would do or doing something which a prudent
and reasonable person guided by similar
considerations would not do. Negligence is not an
absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a
comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision
any mathematically exact formula by which
negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in
a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se
or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will
normally depend upon the attending and surrounding
facts and circumstances which have to be taken into
consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not
doing what one was ought to do can constitute
negligence”.
19. In the light of the above, it has to be
verified that if negligence in the case of an accident
can be gathered from the attendant circumstances,
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable
to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil
jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be
extended to criminal cases provided the attendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
circumstances and basic facts are proved. Either the
accident must be proved by proper and cogent
evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this
principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid
at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how
and due to whose negligence the accident occurred.
The factum of accident having been established, the
Court, with the aid of proper evidence, may take
assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”
15. In the case on hand, the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and collided with a vehicle coming from the opposite
direction. Without any reason, the petitioner suddenly turned the bus to the
right and hit the oncoming vehicle, resulting in the death of four persons and
causing server injuries to 21 others.
16. In such circumstances, the plea that the petitioner was in control of
the bus and that the accident did not occur due to his negligence is not
believable. The petitioner has also failed to establish that the accident occurred
due to any cause other than his own negligence. Therefore, the trial Court as
well as the appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
under Sections 297, 337 (13 counts), 338 (8 counts) and 304A (4 counts) of
I.P.C. Further, PW.25, who is none other than the son of the deceased
Chennian, deposed that while his father was riding his cycle and was about to
cross the road, the accident took place. However, in order to corroborate the
version of events as deposed by PW.25, no supporting evidence was adduced.
In fact, the wife and another son of the deceased, who were examined as
Pws.20 & 21, categorically deposed that the deceased was travelling in the bus
met with an accident, as a result of which, he sustained fatal injuries. One of the
relatives was examined as PW.22 also deposed that when the deceased was
travelling in the bus was met with an accident. Though the Motor Vehicle
Inspector was not examined by the prosecution, the Motor Vehicle Inspection
Report has been marked as Ex.34 and Ex.35.
17. On perusal of Exhibits 34 and 35, it is clear that the accident did
not occur due to any mechanical defect in the bus. Therefore, the non-
examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. It is clear that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on
the part of the partitioner.
18. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
considering the age of the petitioner, the sentence may be reduced to some
extent.
19. Taking into account the age of the petitioner and the nature of the
offence, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed
under Section 304A of the IPC from two years to one year. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
11.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rpl
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Tirupattur
2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Taluk Police Station,
Tirupattur,
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
rpl
11.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:25 pm )
