Madras High Court
P.Saravanan vs The State Rep. By on 25 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.69 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.69 of 2023
P.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Velagoundampatti Police Station,
Namakkal.
(Crime No.77/2016) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 10.10.2022 in Crl.A.No.61 of
2021 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases registered under
SC/ST(POA) Act, Namakkal, confirming the conviction and sentence made in
the judgment dated 19.03.2021 made in C.C.No.488 of 2019 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Arivazhagan
For Mr.T.Rajarathinam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
Crl.R.C.No.69 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgement
dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial
of cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Namakkal, in Crl.A.No.61 of 2021,
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner dated
19.03.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila
Court, Namakkal, in C.C.No.488 of 2019, for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 (3 counts), 304-A of IPC and Sections 134(a), 134 (b) r/w
187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2016 at about 2.12
p.m., when the deceased was riding his two wheeler at Namakkal to
Thiruchengode Main Road near Veppanatham, on the left side of the road, from
the opposite side, the accused had driven his car in a rash and negligence
manner and came to esteem right side of the road, dashed against the two
wheeler which was driven by the deceased. The accused also dashed against
another two wheeler which was riding by an injured along with pillion riders.
Therefore, the person who was riding in his two wheeler died and others
sustained grievous injury. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR
in Crime No.77 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
304A of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final
report and the same was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338 (3 counts) 304A of IPC and Sections 134(a), 134 (b) r/w 187
of the MV Act.
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had
examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the
side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On
perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the
petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 (3 counts)
304A of IPC and Sections 134(a), 134 (b) r/w 187 of the MV Act and
sentenced him as follows :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
1 Section 279 of IPC to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
2 Section 338 of IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
(3 counts) six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for
each count, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
3 Section 304A of IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
4134(a), 134(b) r/w to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
187 of MV Act simple imprisonment for one month.
The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal
by confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Hence the present revision.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond any doubt. The petitioner
was identified by the injured and there was no evidence to show that the
petitioner drove the car in a rash and negligence manner. No one has stated that
the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner.
Therefore, no charge is made out as against the petitioner. Except the injured
no eye witness was examined by the prosecution. Even then, the trial Court
convicted the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured were examined by the
prosecution and they categorically deposed about the accident and the manner
in which the petitioner had driven his car. All had deposed that the petitioner
had driven his car in a rash and negligent manner. The rough sketch was
marked as Ex.P.4 and on perusal of the Ex.P.4, it is revealed that when the
injured and the deceased were riding in their respective motor vehicles on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
left side of the road and the petitioner had driven his car from the opposite side
and on the esteem right side of the road dashed against both the two wheelers.
The offending vehicle was subjected for motor vehicle inspection and the
report revealed that the accident was not taken place due to mechanical fault.
The deceased body was subjected for post mortem and the post mortem report
revealed that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained during the
accident. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and
it doesn't warrant any interference from this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
7. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that
on 17.04.2010, the petitioner had driven his car in a rash and negligence
manner and dashed against the deceased, who is none other than father of
P.W.1 and caused accident. Therefore, he sustained grievous injuries on his
entire body. Though he was taken to hospital, he died due to the injuries
sustained by him. The complaint was marked as Ex.P.1. That part, the petitioner
also dashed against another two wheeler. The injured was examined as P.W.2
and he categorically deposed that when he was riding his motor cycle along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
with his wife and son, on the esteemed left side of the road in the Namakkal-
Thiruchengode road, near Singilipatti, the petitioner had drawn his car in a rush
and negligent manner in the opposite side and dashed against him. Therefore,
he along with wife and son had thrown out from the two wheeler and as such
he sustained fracture on his right leg. He also sustained injury on his head. His
son sustained injury on his head and got fracture on his shoulder. His wife also
sustained fracture on her legs. He also deposed that another driver of the two
wheeler also sustained injury and died in the hospital. The injured persons were
taken to government hospital and they were provided first aid. Thereafter for
further treatment, they were admitted in the Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, for
fifteen days.
8. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P.4 and on perusal of the
rough sketch, it is revealed that the accident was happened on the esteem right
side of the road from the petitioner's vehicle. It shows that the petitioner had
driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and came esteemed right side of
the road and dashed 2 two wheelers. The offending vehicle was subjected for
motor vehicle inspection. The inspection report was marked as Ex.P.6 and it is
revealed that the accident did not happen due to any mechanical fault. The
wound certificate of the injured persons were marked as Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
The post mortem certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P.9. When the
injured persons had deposed about the accident, it doesn't require any other
independent eye witness to the occurrence. The injured witnesses are the best
witness and they categorically deposed and corroborated each other. Therefore,
there is absolutely no flaw on the part of the prosecution and they proved the
charges as against the petitioner. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as well as the appellant
Court.
9. However, considering the age of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to modify the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC
alone. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the petitioner in judgement
dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial
of cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Namakkal, in Crl.A.No.61 of 2021,
and the judgment dated 19.03.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal, in C.C.No.488 of 2019, are hereby
confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on the petitioner under Section
304-A of the IPC is alone modified to the effect that the petitioner shall
undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year. The trial Court is
directed to secure the petitioner for the purpose of sentencing him to undergo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
the reduced/modified period of sentence. Further, the period of remand already
undergone by the petitioner, if any, is ordered to be set off against the sentences
imposed.
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands partly allowed.
25.06.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
To
1.The Special Court for trial
of cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act,
Namakkal.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Velagoundampatti Police Station,
Namakkal.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 11:32:48 am )
