Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 357
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Kurunthan
Versus
The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Solur Muttam Police Station, Nilgiris District
Criminal Revision Case No.1626 of 2005
Decided on : 01-02-2008
For the Petitioner:N. Anand Venkatesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Munniapparaj, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and in cases where two views are possible, one in favor of the prosecution and the other in favor of the accused, the second view in favor of the accused should be preferred.
Headnote:
Break Failure - Criminal Revision Case - Sections 279 IPC, 304(A) IPC, 338 IPC, 337 IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the alleged break failure, the testimony of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and the arguments of the prosecution and the defense. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no mechanical defect (break failure) and that the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused was the cause of the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was prosecuted for multiple offences including rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident. The prosecution alleged that the accident occurred due to the driver's negligence, while the defense claimed that it was caused by a break failure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the alleged offences. It concluded that the evidence did not establish the absence of break failure and the rashness or negligence of the accused as the cause of the accident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was guilty of the alleged offences, and specifically, whether the accident was caused by break failure or the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the absence of break failure and the negligence of the accused. It emphasized the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court reversed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts, acquitting the petitioner/accused of all the offences with which he stood charged.
The petitioner in the criminal revision case was prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri in C.C.No.109 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 I.P.C., 304(A) I.P.C. (7 counts), 338 I.P.C. (7 counts) and 337 I.P.C. (3 counts), found guilty, convicted on all charges and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for the offence under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count of the offence under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count of the offence under Section 337 IPC. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam confirmed the conviction for all the aforesaid offences and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C.(3 counts). However, the sentence awarded for the offence under Sections 279 I.P.C. and 338 I.P.C. (7 counts) were reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count and the sentence for the offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. (7 counts) was reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. As against the said judgment confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and the modified order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case, in brief, are as follows:-
On 010. 2001 at about 9.30 a.m. the revision petitioner drove the vehicle (lorry) bearing registration No.TDQ 9856 from Kil-Kothagiri to Bomman Estate Via Sholurmattam. The said lorry had been loaded with building materials viz. sand and bricks, to be used for the construction work of PW2 Palraj that was in progress at Bomman Estate. PW1 and several others were allowed to travel in the said lorry. PW1 was allowed to sit in the cabin and the others were allowed to sit on the sand and brick load. The said lorry had a brief stop at Sholurmattam where PW1 and others had tea in a near by shop. Thereafter, the lorry was moved by the accused/revision petitioner to proceed towards Bomman Estate. But after covering a short distance from there, the accused shouted at the passengers informing them that the vehicle was running out of control as the break system had failed and advising them to jump out and escape. Thereafter, the said lorry hit against the compound wall of St. Antony Church building and on a near by tree and then capsized. Two of the passengers died on the spot and five other passengers succumbed to the injuries either on the way to the hospital or after having been admitted in the hospital. Other passengers sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. PW1, who managed to jump out and escape with minor scratches, lodged the complaint with the police at Sholurmuttam Police Station. Based on the said complaint a case was registered on the file of Sholurmuttam Police Station, in Cr.No.134 of 2001 for alleged offences under Sections 304(A), 338 and 337 IPC. Ex.P18 is the First Information Report prepared in the printed form. PW40, the then Inspector of Police at Kothagiri, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet alleging commission of offences by the revision petitioner/accused, punishable under Sections 279 I.P.C., 304 (A) I.P.C. (7 counts), 337 I.P.C.(3 counts) and 338 I.P.C. (8 counts). The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri as C.C.No.109 of 2001. Necessary charges were framed and the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. As many as 41 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW41 and 31 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. Also 7 materials objects were produced on the side of the prosecution.
3. The revision petitioner/accused was questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating
