SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 4071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Senthilkumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Station House Officer, Valavanur Police Station – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 887 of 2010
Decided On : 29-06-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Suresh.
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raja.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 279, 337, 304(A) – Causing death by negligence – Rash driving – Charge sheet - Deceased, 10 years old boy, son of PW-5 while standing in left side of the road, near iron shop in main road, accused rode a motor bike from east to west in a high speed and knocked down deceased Raman. PWs. 1 to 4 were present in the scene of occurrence at relevant time - PW-1 is uncle of deceased - PW-1 and others immediately arranged ambulance to take deceased to hospital however deceased succumbed injuries on way to hospital - According to her at about 8.30 a.m. while she was a pillon rider in bike driven by her son at that time a boy was fallen in bike and succumbed injuries - PW-11 Sub-Inspector of police, Police Station, received complaint from PW-1 and registered a case and forwarded F.I.R. Ex.P.6 along with case file to PW-12 Inspector of Police - PW-12 took up investigation and went to place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 in presence of PWs. 6 and 7 and also drawn Rough Sketch Ex.P.7 After completion of investigation, PW-12 Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet as against accused – Held, evidence of Investigating Officer would also clearly show that occurrence place is main road and there will be heavy traffic in road and his evidence also clearly shows that nearby shop persons were not examined by investigating officer - It is to be noted that accused was riding the bike and his mother was sitting as pillion rider at the relevant point of time - Therefore, accused riding the bike with his mother aged about 66 years as per Ex.P.5 Accident Register, in a rash or negligent manner is improbable - Particularly when the mother was sitting as pillion rider, chance of rash and negligent driving is highly remote - Court comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence recorded by trial court and appellate court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence - Hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Court below are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside - Point is answered accordingly - Criminal Revision is allowed

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved over the Judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in Crl. A. No. 30 of 2010 dated 16.8.2010 confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Villupuram in C.C. No. 213 of 2009 dated 15.06.2010 convicting the revision petitioner/accused under Section 337 I.P.C. sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also convicted under section 304(A) I.P.C. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this Revision.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

(a) Deceased Raman, 10 years old boy, son of PW-5 Muthukrishnan, while standing in the left side of the road, near the iron shop in Villupram-Pondicherry main road, the accused rode a motor bike from east to west in a high speed and knocked down the deceased Raman. PWs. 1 to 4 were present in the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. PW-1 is the uncle of the deceased. PW-1 and others immediately arranged ambulance to take the deceased to hospital, however, the deceased succumbed injuries on the way to hospital. Thereafter PW-1 went to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P.1. Apart from PW-1, PWs. 2 to 4 were also seen the accused while he drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased in a high speed. PW-5 father of the minor boy rushed to the spot and took the deceased to the hospital.

(b) PW-8 is the mother of the accused. According to her on 26.4.2009 at about 8.30 a.m. while she was a pillon rider in the bike driven by her son, at that time a boy was fallen in the bike and succumbed injuries. PW-11 Sub-Inspector of police, Valavanur Police Station, received the complaint from PW-1 and registered a case in Cr.No. 321 of 2009 under section 279, 337, 304(A) I.P.C. and forwarded the F.I.R. Ex.P.6 along with case file to PW-12 Inspector of Police. PW-12 took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of PWs. 6 and 7 and also drawn Rough Sketch Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he went to the hospital, conducted the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared Inquest Report Ex.P.8 and arrested the accused on the same day. PW-12 sent the seized bike bearing Registration No. PY-01-AT-9678 for examination by Motor Vehicle Inspector PW-9 he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital along with a requisition to the doctor to conduct post mortem.

(c) PW-10 Medical Officer conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the minor and found head injury and given Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.4. He also examined PW-8 Govindammal on the same day and issued Accident Register Ex.P.5. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. PW-9 Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the motor cycle and found that the right side of the number plater and indicator light were broken in the motor cycle. He also given his opined that the accident might not be due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. After the completion of investigation, PW-12 the Inspector of Police, filed the charge sheet as against the accused under Section 279, 337, 304(A) I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate after examined the witnesses and perused the other material piece of evidence, found guilty of the accused under Section 337 and 304 (A) I.P.C. and imposed conviction and sentence as stated above. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner is before this Court by way of this Revision. Though the prosecution filed charge sheet under section 279, 337, 304(A) I.P.C. case was taken on file and the accused was questioned for the charges under Sections 279, 337, 304(A), the learned Judicial Magistrate as













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top