Madras High Court
Mohan vs State Rep. By on 11 March, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2022
Mohan ... Petitioner
Versus
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Krishnapuram Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.332/2017) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401
Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri made in Crl.A.No.5 of 2019 dated 09.08.2021 and sentence was
confirmed against the petitioner in C.C.No.95 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019 on
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dharmapuri in C.C.No.95 of 2018 by judgment dated
10.01.2019 and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.5 of
2019. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, by judgment dated
09.08.2021, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the Trial
Court but modified the sentenced from two years simple imprisonment to six
months simple imprisonment. Against which, the present revision is filed.
2.The gist of the case is that on 31.12.2017 at about 3.15 p.m., one
Chinnapappa of Seerampatty Village, Krishnapuram Taluk went to a Petty
shop to purchase betel leaves and nut. After purchase, she returned back to
her home by walking in the mud road, at that time, a two wheeler Hero
Honda Splendor bearing registration No.TN-29-AE-8272 driven by the
petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said
Chinnapappa and she was dragged for some distance, in which, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
sustained injuries and fracture on her left leg and left hand. She was taken to
the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri in 108 Ambulance where the Doctor
declared her dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint to P.W.15/Sub-
Inspector of Police who registered FIR/Ex.P5. P.W.16 took up the
investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar
and rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses present in the scene of
occurrence, conducted inquest, sent the body for Postmortem and the two
wheeler to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. After receipt of
Postmortem certificate/Ex.P3 and Motor Vehicle Inspection report/Ex.P4,
charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.16 examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P8 marked on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the defence,
no witness examined and no documents marked. The Trial Court on
conclusion of trial convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo
two years simple imprisonment which the Lower Appellate Court modified
and reduced to six months simple imprisonment. Against which, the present
revision filed.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
deceased Chinnapappa who was having hearing impairment crossed the road
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
without noticing the vehicle and despite honking of horns, she failed to
move away from the path, thereby she contributed to the accident. He would
submit that in this case the petitioner, who is the rider of the two wheeler,
sustained serious injuries. Further, the projected eye witnesses not stated
anything about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the earlier
statement and hence, their presence becomes doubtful. P.W.1/complainant,
who is the son of the deceased, admits that he has not seen the accident. He
would further submit that P.W.2 to P.W.5, who are the projected eye
witnesses, are closely related to the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 to
P.W.5 are contradictory to each other which would confirm that they were
not present in the scene of occurrence. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the witnesses
for observation mahazar and rough sketch. P.W.10 states that he had signed
the observation mahazar along with one Ramu and P.W.11, who is the other
witness admits that he signed the observation mahazar on the request of the
Police and he does not know anything about the observation mahazar and
rough sketch. The other witnesses, P.W.6 to P.W.9 are in the nature of
hearsay witnesses. P.W.13/Motor Vehicle Inspector admits that 5½ months
after the accident he inspected the vehicle, that to, in a stationary condition.
He further submitted that none of the witnesses identified the vehicle with its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
registration number. Hence, both the Courts below ought not to have
convicted the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the other hand
submitted that in this case, P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the eye witnesses, P.W.1 and
P.W.6 to P.W.9 are the hearsay witnesses. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the
witnesses for observation mahazar and rough sketch, who state about the
preparation of observation mahazar. It has not been suggested to P.W.10 and
P.W.11 that observation mahazar and rough sketch were not prepared in their
presence and about one Ramu. P.W.13/Motor Vehicle Inspector who
inspected the vehicle had given a report/Ex.P4 stating that front both forks
bend, head light mounting bracket broken and mask scratched, front both
indicator broken and handle bar bend and suggested that the rider of the
vehicle dashed with speed and momentum. He further submitted that in this
case, the petitioner had driven the vehicle without driving licence. Further
referring to Postmortem certificate, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) submitted that abrasions are present on the forehead, left cheek, left
side of the chin, left forearm and fracture in the left leg, left arm and of the
sternum would confirm that the two wheeler was driven with high speed in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
rash and negligent manner and dragged the victim to some feet as confirmed
by the eye witnesses. He would submit that in the complaint/Ex.P1, the
presence of eye witnesses recorded and the registration number of the two
wheeler also mentioned. The petitioner who sustained injury took treatment
and later, he voluntarily surrendered before P.W.16 on 02.04.2018, thereafter
the vehicle was produced for inspection on 25.04.2018 and hence, there was
a delay which was the contribution of the petitioner. He further submitted
that the rough sketch/Ex.P6 confirms that the victim was near the Nagaraj
Petty Shop which is in the mud road and away from the thar road, which
would confirm that the petitioner had driven the two wheeler in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the Trial Court had
rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for two years but the Lower
Appellate Court reduced the sentence from two years to six months. He
fairly submitted that no appeal was filed against the modification of period
of sentence.
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that in this case, P.W.1 who is the son of the Chinnapappa was
informed by P.W.2 on 31.12.2017 at about 3.15 p.m. that his mother
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
sustained injury due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
Immediately P.W.1 reaches the spot, took his injured mother to the
Government Hospital, Dharmapuri in 108 Ambulance along with P.W.2 to
P.W.4 where she was pronounced dead. P.W.1 in his complaint/Ex.P1
clearly stated about the information received through P.W.2, the presence of
eye witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.5 in the accident spot and also the registration
number of the two wheeler. It is also seen that in this case the rider of the
two wheeler got injured but no explanation was given by the rider. The
Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and found that the accident
was not due to any mechanical fault. P.W.12/Postmortem Doctor confirms
the injuries which are in conformity to the ocular evidence. Further the
injuries sustained by the deceased would clearly confirm that she was
dragged for some distance and she also sustained fracture on her hands, legs
and sternum which would confirm the speed of the vehicle and the impact of
the accident which would clearly prove that the petitioner had driven the two
wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident who was
standing on the mud road. Hence, this Court is of the view that both the
Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner. In view of the same, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
Court which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court by reducing the
period of sentence.
6.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The
Trial Court is directed to secure the petitioner for sufferance of the
remaining period of sentence.
11.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Krishnapuram Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dharmapuri.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 11:06:55 am )
