Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1707
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Saravanan
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Kanchieepuram
Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2005
Decided On : 12-06-2007
For the Petitioner:M. Venkateswaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is that a person can only be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence, not under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC for the same act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - Section 279 IPC, Section 304A IPC - The court discussed the evidence of the occurrence witness, the autopsy report, and the rough sketch of the accident scene. It highlighted the legal provisions of Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC, emphasizing that the accused can only be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence, not under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC. The court set aside the conviction under Section 279 IPC and modified the sentence under Section 304A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged under Section 304(A) IPC and Section 279 IPC for causing the death of a cyclist due to rash and negligent driving. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, and the first appellate court upheld the decision, leading to the accused filing a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence of the occurrence witness, the autopsy report, and the rough sketch of the accident scene. It found that the accused can only be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence, not under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC. The court set aside the conviction under Section 279 IPC and modified the sentence under Section 304A IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused could be convicted under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC for the same incident of rash and negligent driving resulting in death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused can only be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence, not under both Section 279 IPC and Section 304A IPC, as the legal provisions do not allow for dual conviction for the same act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision in part, setting aside the conviction under Section 279 IPC and modifying the sentence under 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.
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?
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 the accident he went to the place of accident and saw his son lying on the road, dead. Ex.P.1 is the complaint preferred by him.
5. P.W.2 has also seen the injured boy after the occurrence. He is a witness in Ex.P.2-mahazar.
6. P.W.3 is an occurrence witness. According to him, at the time of the accident, he was proceeding from East to West in T.K.Nambi Street and that the boy was proceeding from West to East on his cycle on the extreme left hand side of the road and the bus was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner from East to West and at the place of occurrence the bus hit the boy and ran over on his head causing instantaneous death.
7. P.W.4 is also not an ocular witness, she is the mother of the victim boy. P.W.4 would say that after hearing the accident she went and saw a group of persons at the place of occurrence.
8. P.W.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the vehicle which involved in the accident on 11. 2001 and about 12.40 pm. According to him, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Ex.P.6 is his report.
9. P.W.7 is the conductor of the ill-fated bus. He would identify the accused as the driver, who had driven the bus which involved in the accident.
10. P.W.8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence he was treated as a hostile witness.
11. P.W.9 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of the victim. Ex.P.7 is the post-mortem report. According to her, the death has occurred only due to the fracture on the skull of the victim.
12. P.W.10 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police Vishnukanchi Police Station, who had registered the case under Cr.No.74 of 2001 on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 274 and 304A IPC. He had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.10-observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.2. He had also drawn a rough sketch-Ex.P.9. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He has arrested the accused and released him on bail on the same day.
13. P.W.11 is the successor of P.W.10. After following the formalities, and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet on 211. 2001 against the accused under Section 279 & 304A IPC.
14. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has held that the accused is guilty under Section 279 IPC and also under Section 304A IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 279 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.600/-with default sentence and also convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304A IPC to undergo 4 months RI and slapped a fine of Rs.1,500/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.125 of 2004 before th
