Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1494
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Kumaresan
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police, Erode District
Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2009 & M.P.No.2 of 2009
Decided on : 17-03-2011
For the Petitioner:N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Rajakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
The court emphasized the importance of proving the cause of death in cases of rash and negligent driving, and highlighted the deterrence factor in sentencing for such offences.
Headnote:
Section 304-A IPC - Rash and Negligent Driving - Sections 279 and 304-A IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of two individuals. The accused was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, confirmed the conviction, and reduced the sentence based on the circumstances.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of post-mortem certificates, discrepancy in evidence, and leniency in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cause of death was proved by the prosecution, and the accused was not entitled to leniency based on the nature of the offence.
Final Decision: The conviction was confirmed, and the sentence was reduced to six months with an enhanced fine. Compensation was directed to be paid to the families of the deceased.
1. The Crl.R.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 28.1.2009 in Crl.A.No.235 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentenced passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, in C.C.No.282 of 2003, dated 5.8.2008, whereby the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and no separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 279 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is as follows:
On 21.6.2003 at 18.30 hours, near Sengappalli IOC Petrol Bunk, the deceased Kumaresan and Saravanan were proceeding in a motor cycle from East to West and in the opposite direction, the revision petitioner/accused drove a van bearing Registration No.TN-67-Z-0432 with a rash and negligent manner and went on the wrong side and dashed against the said motor cycle. Saravanan died on the spot and Kumaresan was taken by P.W.2 to hospital and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to death. The complaint has been given by P.W.1. On that basis, the investigating officer P.W.6 (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered a case in Crime No.150 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and prepared the printed FIR Ex.P-5 and the vehicle has been inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.4 and the report given by P.W.4 is Ex.P-4. P.W.7 conducted inquest and Exs.P-7 and P-8 are the inquest reports. The Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem certificates in Exs.P-9 and P-10. The investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P-2 and seized the material objects and concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A (2 counts) IPC.
3. The trial Court, after following procedures, framed charges against the revision petitioner/accused since the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty and after examining P.Ws.1 to 7 and marking Exs.P-1 to P-10, found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offences under Section 279 and 304-A (2 counts) IPC, convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for each counts, in default, to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and the trial Court has not awarded any separate sentence for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.235 of 2008 and the learned appellate Judge, after considering the arguments of both counsel, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.R.C. is filed by the revision petitioner/accused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused put forth his arguments as follows:
(i) The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem was not examined and Exs.P-9 and P-10 post-mortem certificates have been marked through the investigating officer P.W.7 and while marking those documents, they have not followed the procedures contemplated under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and hence, the documents Exs.P-9 and P-10 are inadmissible in evidence and so, the cause of death has not been proved and therefore, the revision petitioner/accused is entitled for acquittal. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.
(ii) There is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
(iii) Even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, he is entitled for leniency in the sentence.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-Police
