Back
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Kanchieepuram – Respondent
Question 1? What is the applicability of Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC to the same act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death? Question 2? What is the correct conviction/sentence when rash and negligent driving causes death – should it be under Section 279 IPC, or under Section 304A IPC, or both? Question 3? How should the conviction and sentence be modified on revision when the trial court erred in convicting under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC?
Key Points: - (!) The accused was charged under Section 304A IPC and Section 279 IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving. - (!) The Court held that a person can only be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence, not under both 279 IPC and 304A IPC for the same act. - (!) The conviction under Section 279 IPC was set aside, and the conviction under Section 304A IPC was retained (with modification of punishment). - (!) The sentence under Section 304A IPC was enhanced, and the period already undergone was substituted for the earlier concurrent prison term. - (!) Readiness to compensate under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. with the remaining fine amount directed to be paid within a specified time. - (!) The revision petition was allowed in part, setting aside the Section 279 IPC conviction while upholding/modifying the Section 304A IPC conviction and sentence. - (!) The medical autopsy (Ex.P.7) and ocular evidence (P.W.3) supported death due to skull fracture, aligning with negligence-based causation. - (!) The appellate court emphasized proper application of law: dual conviction for the same act is not permissible. - (!) The delay in granting compensation was addressed by directing the Legal Representatives of the victim to withdraw the collected fine after payment of the entire amount. - (!) The factual timeline places the incident on 11-2001, involving a Tamil Nadu Government bus and a cyclist, with consequences appropriate to Section 304A IPC.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.125 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.No.II, Kancheepuram, which had arisen out of the judgment in C.C.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram. The accused has been charged under Section 304(A) IPC and also under Section279 IPC.
2. According to the prosecution, on 11. 2001 at about 7.40 am the accused had driven the Tamil Nadu Government bus bearing registration No.TN 21 N 0030 from Ekanampet to Gangaikondan Mandapam, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist by name Neelagandan, aged 12 years causing grievous injury, which resulted in his instantaneous death.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the accused and on his appearance copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to him and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked.
4. P.W.1 is the father of the victim boy Neelagandan. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence. After knowing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
