Madras High Court
Mr.Anandha Babu vs The State Represented By on 7 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL RC No. 2190 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL RC No. 2190 of 2024
Mr.Anandha Babu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Represented By
Inspector Of Police, M-4, Thudiyalur Police Station,
Coimbatore. Crime No.379/2016
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to set aside the Judgment of dismissal
passed in C.A.No.72 of 2023 dated 20.09.2024 by the Learned IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and thereby confirming the Judgment
of Conviction passed in C.C.No.810 of 2016 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Coimbatore dated 23.02.2023.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Sivakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore dated 23.02.2023 made in C.C.No.810 of
2016 and the judgment of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore dated 20.09.2024 made in C.A.No.72 of 2023.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
2. By the said Judgment the trial court found the petitioner guilty of an
offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one week simple
imprisonment; for an offence under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one week
simple imprisonment; and for an offence under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal
Code and to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple
imprisonment.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2016, when PW10
Karuppusamy, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty at Thudialur Police Station,
he received information from the Coimbatore Government Hospital and he went
there and PW1/injured witness Muthukrishnan gave a statement to the effect
that, on 27.04.2016, in a two-wheeler bearing registration number TN 38 BS
7849 (Pulsar motorcycle) the deceased Paulpandi was riding the vehicle and he
was the pillion rider and when they were returning from KNG Pudur to their
house in Kanuvai to Coimbatore road from north to south at about 01.15 p.m.,
opposite to Idayarpalayam Gandhi Adigal School, suddenly, the Tata ace
vehicle which was parked in the no parking zone on the left hand side, which
was driven by its driver/the accused, suddenly came from east to west and
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
turned towards north without any signal and in a rash and negligent manner hit
against the Pulsar motorcycle and they were thrown out.
4. On account of which, the rider Paulpandi succumbed to the injuries
and PW1 after suffering grievous injuries was undergoing treatment as an
inpatient. On the strength of the said allegations, a case was registered in Crime
No.379 of 2016 for the alleged offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of
Indian Penal Code.
5. PW11, the Inspector of Police thereafter took up the case for
investigation and after completion of investigation laid a final report proposing
the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences. The case was taken on file as
CC.No.810 of 2016. Upon summons being issued and copies being furnished
and questioning, the accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to
bring home the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Upon being questioned about the incriminating circumstances
and material evidences on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was
let in on behalf of the defence.
6. The trial Court considered the case of the prosecution and that of the
accused and relied upon the eyewitness PW1 and PW2 and the manner in which
the accident had taken place and held that the accused, suddenly in a rash and
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
negligent manner came to the main road from the front space that was available
before the Idayarpalayam Gandhi Adigal School without properly watching the
road or signaling and thus caused the accident and therefore convicted the
accused of the offences and sentenced as aforementioned.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed a criminal appeal in C.A.No.72
of 2023. The appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed
the sentence passed by the trial court, as against which the present revision is
filed.
8. Heard Mr.Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. The learned counsel by taking this Court through the First
Information Report, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the rough sketch would
plead that the finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the
charges were proved is liable to be interfered with as the prosecution has not at
all proved the charge as PW1 and PW2 have come up with different versions
and the prosecution has not pin pointedly made any effort to make out the
manner in which the accident happened.
9. The learned counsel would further submit that the evidence of
PW9/the auto-driver, the vehicle which was also involved in the accident
confounds the case further and there is absolutely no explanation on behalf of
the prosecution. Firstly, with regard to the manner of accident and only if it is
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
established, the further question as to the rash and negligence would come into
play. There is absolutely no iota of evidence with reference to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused and therefore this court should interfere in the
evidence of the findings of the Courts below.
10. Per contra, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate
(Crl.side) would submit that it is true that the PW2's version is different from
the case of the prosecution and he has also admitted that he is a relative of the
complainant. To that extent, the version of the PW2 should be discarded by this
Court and the relevant witness is PW1, who is the injured witness, who was the
pillion rider. He has categorically spoken about the fact that the deceased was
riding the vehicle from north to south and the manner in which the accused had
suddenly come in the main road from the left handside, without any indication,
whatsoever and thus overall, the prosecution has established that the accused
has not exercised the reasonable care that is expected of him as a driver and that
he suddenly came to the main road with his vehicle and thus the accident had
happened and therefore the ultimate conclusion of the trial Court and the lower
appellate Court cannot be interfered with.
11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
records of the case.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
12. Firstly, from the rough sketch, it can be seen that there is an open
space available in front of the Gandhi Adigal School in which the vehicle of the
accused seems to have been parked. Once the vehicle that is parked comes into
the main road, it can be seen that, immediately after the vehicle has started, the
accident had happened. Therefore, there is no question of any high speed in
this case. The culpable rashness and culpable negligence that can be attributed
on the part of the accused is that he has suddenly come into the main road
without noticing the vehicles that are passing through the main road from the
north to west and without appropriate signaling. If the accused had done so,
then the same would also amounts to an offence punishable under Section
304(A) of Indian Penal Code.
13. In this regard, the version of the PW2 who is also said to be an
eyewitness contradicts the version of PW1 and the other eyewitness. He states
that the vehicle suddenly turned towards the east which cannot be true as the
case of the prosecution itself is that the vehicle came from the eastern side to the
main road. Therefore, the version of the injured eyewitness/pillion rider/PW1
and the other eyewitness examined by the prosecution PW2 are in contradiction
with each other. PW2 was also not treated as hostile and cross examined by the
Public Prosecutor.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
14. In that background, even for a moment discarding the evidence of
PW2 and consider the evidence of PW1 alone, though the PW1's evidence is
consistent with the rough sketch that is marked, PW1 evidence also falls short
of stating the details with reference to the manner of accident. Whether the
collision was head on or in the sense that whether the collision was in the front
side of the Tata Ace vehicle or sidewards etc., are absolutely not mentioned.
The prosecution has not explained the manner of accident at all so as to
determine the culpable rashness or culpable negligence on the part of the
accused.
15. Therefore, when the evidence of the prosecution is self contradictory
and the prosecution has done very little to explain about the manner of accident,
in the instant case, I am of the view that, the finding of the trial court as well as
the first appellate Court that as if the accused alone is solely responsible for the
accident and that he drew the vehicle in rash and negligent manner borders on
perversity and as such, it makes out a case for interference in the exercise of
Revisional Jurisdiction.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed. The
conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the judgment of trial court
in C.C.No.810 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore
dated 23.02.2023 and as confirmed by the appellate Court in C.A.No.72 of 2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
dated 20.09.2024 by learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore shall stand set aside. The fine amount, if any paid, is ordered to be
refunded to the petitioner.
07-11-2025
Neutral Citation: No
mpl
To
1. The Inspector Of Police,
M-4, Thudiyalur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
mpl
07-11-2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
