Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1957
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
K. Viswanathan
Versus
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Branch (central) Coimbatore
Crl.R.C.No.412 of 2004
Decided On : 02-07-2007
For the Petitioner:K. Kalyanasundaram, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, contributory negligence may be considered in determining liability and sentencing.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Accident - Rash and Negligent Driving - IPC 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and Motor Vehicles Act - Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 - [IPC 279, 337, 338, 304(A), Motor Vehicles Act - Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187]
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged under IPC Section 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 for a motor vehicle accident resulting in death and injuries to the victims. Eye witnesses and evidence from the scene supported the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under IPC Section 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187, and modified the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused as well as the contributory negligence of the cyclist. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone instead of the original one month and three months RI.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, confirming the conviction, but the sentence was modified to the period already undergone for certain charges.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.368/2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC.No.I), Coimbatore, which had arisen against the judgement in C.C.No.47 of 2002 on the file the Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore. The accused has been charged under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 IPC and also under Section 134(a)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w 187 IPC.
2. The learned trial Judge, after taking cognizance of the offence, on appearance of the accused on summons, issued copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and when the charges were explained to him and questioned, he pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.
3. P.W.1 is the complainant. According to him, the occurrence had taken place on 12. 2002 at about 6.00 pm while he was proceeding in his motor cycle on the Coimbatore - Sathyamangalam road he saw his brother-in-law Muthukumar near Barathi nagar bus stop and he stopped his motor cycle and had conversation with this brother-in-law, at that time, his father-in-law deceased came in a by-cycle from west to east and at that time the accused was driving the ill-fated bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the by-cycle in which his father-in-law was riding and the right side front wheel of the bus ran over the by-cycle causing grievous injuries on the right side of the head and right hand and right elbow causing instantaneous death and that the bus had also hit on the scooter in which Ubayathulla and his son were travelling and both Ubayathulla and his son sustained injuries and that Ex.P.1-complaint was preferred by him. The accused was driving the private bus bearing registration No.TN.40-A 7997.
4. P.W.2 knows both the accused as well as P.W.1. According to him, when he was talking with P.W.1 on 12. 2002 at about 6.00 pm near the place of occurrence, the accused had driven the private bus bearing registration No.TN-40-A 7997 rashly and negligently and dashed against the by-cycle in which his father was riding resulting his instantaneous death and that the bus has also hit on the scooter which was proceeding in the opposite direction causing injuries on the rider of the scooter as well as the pillion rider and that the injured were removed to the hospital.
5. P.W.3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the ill-fated bus and issued Ex.P.2-certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the bus.
6. P.W.4 is also an eye witness, who would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 to the effect that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
7. P.W.5 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4.
8. P.W.6 is a scooterist, who was also hit by the ill-fated bus at the time of the accident. He has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 & P.W.5.
9. P.W.7 is the son of P.W.6, a minor and a pillion rider of the scooter, which involved in the accident.
10. P.W.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the case under Cr.No.90 of 2002 under Section 279, 337, 304(A) IPC. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the FIR.
11. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who on the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint had visited to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.18. He had also drawn the rough sketch-Ex.P.8. He has conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased and Ex.P.9 is the inquest report. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.w.14 has sent the corpse of the deceased for post-mortem through post-mortem constable P.W.13.
12. P.W.11 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased and issued Ex.P.6-post mortem report. The doctor has opined that due to the injuries on the skull and due to hemorrhage the deceased would have died.
13. After completing the formalities P.W.12 has filed th
