Madras High Court
Kumaresan vs The State Rep. By on 18 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.R.C.No. 54 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.54 of 2024
Kumaresan ... Petitioner
Vs
The State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Karimangalam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District, Cr.No. 91/2015. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records relating to the judgment dated
12.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Dharmapuri in
Crl.A.No.34 of 2022 conforming the judgment and sentence dated 10.10.2020
passed in C.C.No.129 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Palacode and set aside the same, thereby acquit the appellant.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
Crl.R.C.No. 54 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, dated 10.10.2020 made in C.C. No. 129
of 2016, and the judgment dated 12.12.2023 made in Criminal Appeal No. 34
of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Dharmapuri.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty
of an offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; for an offence
under Section 337 of IPC (3 counts) and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month for each of the counts; for the offence
punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC (2 counts) and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for each count, and
directed the sentences to run concurrently. The Appellate Court confirmed the
finding of guilt and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2015, at about 11:40 p.m.,
in Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri four-lane road at Agaram junction, P.W.1,
Prabhakaran, who was the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-29-N-2287, had stopped the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
on the left side of the road and the passengers were alighting from the bus. At
that time, the accused drove the crane vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-20-
BZ-2584 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus from
behind, resulting in the death of two passengers and injury to three passengers
who were sitting in the back row of the bus. A complaint to the above effect
was lodged by P.W.1 and the case was registered in Crime No. 91 of 2015 for
the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC. P.W.11 took up the
investigation and after completing the investigation, laid the final report
proposing the accused guilty of the offences.
4. Upon the case being taken on file and issue of summons, copies were
furnished and on questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood for
trial. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to
P.W.11 and Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked. Upon being questioned about the
incriminating evidence and material circumstances on record under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the same as false.
Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
5. The Trial Court considered the case of the prosecution. It held that by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
examining the driver of the bus, the injured witnesses and the eyewitnesses, the
prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It considered the
defence of the accused that the bus stopped in the middle of the road and
concluded that such defences cannot be accepted and convicted and sentenced
the accused as aforesaid. The petitioner/accused filed an appeal, and the
Appellate Court, once again on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the
conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, against which this Revision is
filed.
6. Mr.A.Sakthivel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, would submit that a perusal of the rough sketch would clearly show
that the accident happened near the junction. Immediately after the crossroad,
there is a service road in which P.W.1 was supposed to have stopped the bus
and permitted the passengers to alight. On the contrary, P.W.1 stopped the bus
in the middle of the road, which resulted in the accident. It must further be seen
that the accident happened during the midnight. During the midnight when there
is no traffic at all, when the crane was proceeding with reasonable speed and
care, suddenly on account of the erroneous act of P.W.1 in stopping the bus in
the middle of the road, coupled with the fact that visibility is less during night-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
time, the accident happened, the same is not due to any rash and negligent
driving of the accused. The accused being a crane driver, normally used to drive
the vehicle only at a slow speed. One can visualise that at midnight, i.e.,11:40
p.m., when there is no traffic at all, the crane could proceed at a reasonable
speed and only because the bus suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, the
accident happened. Further, the learned counsel pointed out the contradictions
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard and submitted that
this Court should acquit the accused.
7. Per contra, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, the learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side), by pointing out the high-mast lamp mentioned in the rough sketch,
submitted that it is a crossroad where buses normally stop for passengers to get
in and alight. It is true that ideally the bus should take the service lane and stop,
but the normal practice during night-time is to stop on the left side of the main
road itself and it cannot be contended by the accused that there was no
visibility. Obviously, the accused did not drive the vehicle with the reasonable
care expected of him and dashed from behind. The very fact that the five
persons sitting in the last row suffered grievous injuries and two of them
succumbed to death would itself show the manner of impact and the rashness
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
and negligence on the part of the accused. When the prosecution has proved the
charges beyond reasonable doubt, there is nothing for this Court to interfere
with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records.
9. It is true that P.W.1 erred in stopping the bus on the left side of the
main road instead of taking the service lane and stopping the bus there so that
the passengers could alight and get into the bus. The rough sketch clearly shows
that there was a way for P.W.1 to have done so at the Agaram Road junction
itself. However, as is common in traffic, the violation of road regulations in this
country is frequent. It is common knowledge that on every highway having a
four-lane road, from the outskirts of Chennai city to the end of the four-lane
stretch, Government bus drivers and other bus drivers think it fit to use the main
road also by stopping the bus on the left-hand side of the road and making
passengers alight and board.
10. It is a common sight in this country that on the medians between the
service road and the main road, passengers wait with their luggage to board
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
buses, and these medians virtually serve as bus stops. The freedom guaranteed
to the people of this country is often equated with the act of violating traffic
regulations. To an extent, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
petitioner that this contributed to the accident. But at the same time, the junction
is fitted with two high-mast lights on either side diagonally. It is common
knowledge that these crossroads are well lit even in the middle of the night, as
there will be shops and people waiting to get into buses and the junctions will
be busy even during midnight, though not as busy as during daytime. In this
background, it is not that the crane just touched the bus from behind; it can be
seen that the impact was heavy, leading to the death of two persons and injury
to three persons. Therefore, the manner in which the crane was driven and the
impact on the rear side of the bus have to be taken into account and any driver
is well accustomed to the fact that buses stop on the road abutting the median.
11. It can also be seen that there was further space on the road for the
crane to avoid the bus, as the road width between the centre median and the
side median is shown as 24 feet in that place. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra1
more specifically in paragraph No. 37 to 39 has explained the concept of
1 (2012) 2 SCC 648
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
culpable rashness and culpable negligence and the same is extracted hereunder
for ready reference:-
“37. In Empress of India v. Idu Beg [ILR
(1881) 3 All 776] Straight, J. explained the meaning
of criminal rashness and criminal negligence in the
following words: (ILR pp. 779-80)
“… criminal rashness is hazarding a
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is
so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention
to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be
caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of
doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as
to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross
and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that
reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard
against injury either to the public generally or to an
individual in particular, which, having regard to all
the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen,
it was the imperative duty of the accused person to
have adopted.”
The above meaning of criminal rashness and
criminal negligence given by Straight, J. has been
adopted consistently by this Court.
38. Insofar as Section 304-A IPC is concerned,
it deals with death caused by doing any rash or
negligent act where such death is caused neither
intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act of the
offender is likely to cause death. The applicability of
Section 304-A IPC is limited to rash or negligent acts
which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide
amounting to murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. An essential element to attract
Section 304-A IPC is death caused due to rash or
negligent act. The three things which are required to
be proved for an offence under Section 304-A are:
(1) death of human being;
(2) the accused caused the death; and
(3) the death was caused by the doing of a rash
or negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
homicide of either description.
39. Like Section 304-A, Sections 279, 336, 337
and 338 IPC are attracted for only the negligent or
rash act. The scheme of Sections 279, 304-A, 336, 337
and 338 leaves no manner of doubt that these offences
are punished because of the inherent danger of the
acts specified therein irrespective of knowledge or
intention to produce the result and irrespective of the
result. These sections make punishable the acts
themselves which are likely to cause death or injury to
human life.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. It is not driving at a very high speed alone or colliding head-on that
will amount to culpable rashness or culpable negligence, but the essence is
whether the driver exercised the reasonable care expected of him. When that is
found lacking in the present petitioner, I am of the view that the ultimate finding
of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court cannot be
interfered with.
13. Considering the sentence imposed, it can be seen that after the
accident and after the appeal was dismissed, the accused was in custody for a
total period of 17 days. The manner of the accident as noted above, is taken into
account. It is not due to any egregious or aggravated misconduct but due to
human error in not taking reasonable care and not avoiding the impact/collision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
from behind. It can also be seen that the accused has been facing proceedings
from 2015, for the past 10 years. The accused is now aged 38 years. The
accused is married to one Maheshwari and has two children, Dharanish and
Madhan Kumar, who are studying in the 8th and 10th standards respectively
and the petitioner is stated to be the sole breadwinner of the family. It is also
stated that dependents of the deceased persons have filed claim petitions and
compensation has been awarded. The injured have also received compensation
relating to the accident.
14. In view of the above, the sentence is modified as follows:
(i) The finding of guilt for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (3
counts) and 304A (2 counts) recorded by the Trial Court in C.C.No. 129/2016
dated 10.10.2020 and the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No. 34 of 2022 dated
12.12.2023 is confirmed.
(ii) For the offence under Section 279 of IPC, the punishment imposed by
the Courts above is modified and the accused is imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
(iii) For the offence under Section 337 of IPC (3 counts), the sentence
imposed by the Trial Court is modified and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each count,
totalling Rs. 6,000/-, is imposed.
(iv) For the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, the punishment is
modified to the effect that the sentence of imprisonment shall be the period
already undergone and the accused shall pay an additional fine of Rs. 8,000/-.
(v) In total, the petitioner/accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one week. The fine amount shall be paid within three weeks from the date of
the order.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
18.11.2025
Neutral Citation: No
nsl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
To
1. The Principal Sessions Court,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Palacode.
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:04 pm )
