The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must carefully analyze the evidence to determine whether there are sufficient materials available to frame a charge under a specific section of the law.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2015 in S.C.No.174 of 2015, dated 12.04.2016 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 308 of I.P.C. and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the case was taken on file by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, as S.C.No.174 of 2015. He would submit that the road traffic accident will not come under the provision of Section 308 of I.P.C. There is no material on record to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. and since there is no intention to commit the offence knowingly by the petitioner, Section 308 of I.P.C. is not made out and only the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act alone is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be discharged from the charge under Section 308 of I.P.C.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would contend that a reading of the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would clearly prove that there are materials available to frame the charge under Section 308 of I.P.C. against the petitioner/accused. Hence, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was correctly dismissed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, he prayed that the criminal revision case may be dismissed.

5. It is an admitted fact that an accident took place and the respondent police has registered a case against the petitioner on analysing the materials produced by either side. The Investigating Officer has filed the First Information Report against the petitioner, prepared an observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch and also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and finally, filed the final report. In this case, on a reading of the F.I.R., it is clearly proved that on the basis of the complaint given by one Subramani, originally, the case was registered for the offences under Sections 279, 338 IPC (2 counts), 337 and 308 of IPC, and subsequently, it was altered to Section 308 of IPC (3 counts) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The complaint given by the complainant viz., Subramani reads as follows:-

Other witnesses also, in their evidence, have reiterated the similar statements. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the car was coming out of the car parking area and immediately caused accident to the victims. Hence, the accident had occurred only by the driver of the car while came out of the car parking area and crossed the road.

6. Further, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., one of the witness K.Subramani had stated as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

7. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. another witness viz., Geetha, has stated as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

8. One of the eye-witness viz., Vetrivel, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., had stated as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

9. Another eye-witness viz., Krishnan, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., had stated as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

10. On a reading of the above 161 statements, it is clear that the car was coming out from the apartment with rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence, this Court can presume that there are incriminating materials available for the car coming from the apartment in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

11. Further, the Ac