Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. RAJAMANICKAM, J.
M. Cyril Irudayaraj - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
CRL.RC. No. 581 of 2016
Decided On : 13-05-2020
For the Petitioner:M/s. G. Saravanan, Advocate. For the Respondent:M/s. T. Shanmuga Rajeswaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of rash and negligent driving, causing death by negligence, and the considerations under the probation of offenders Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Conviction and Sentence - U/s.304-A IPC, U/s.338 IPC, U/s.337 IPC, U/s.279 IPC, U/s.411 r/w.177 of MV Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented under Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 IPC, and Section 411 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The key legal provisions of rash and negligent driving, causing death by negligence, and the principles of probation of offenders Act were interpreted and applied in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner, causing a fatal accident resulting in deaths and injuries to several individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and rejected the accused's defense of avoiding a child on the road. The court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's driving behavior, the validity of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, and the application of probation of offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unshaken evidence of the eye witnesses, rejected the accused's defense, and emphasized the importance of the eye witnesses' testimony over the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. The court also applied the principles of probation of offenders Act in reaching the decision.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, reducing it from one year to six months simple imprisonment for each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 on 12.05.2015 in CC.No.1005 of 2007.)
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. Appeal No.117 of 2015 dated 15.02.2016 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in CC.No.1005 of 2007 dated 12.05.2015.
2. The learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has convicted the Revision Petitioner/Accused and sentenced him as follows:
| Sl.No. | Provision of law | Sentence |
| 1. | U/s.304-A IPC (2 counts) | One year Simple Imprisonment for each count |
| 2. | U/s.338 IPC (2 counts) | Fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 4 weeks simple imprisonment for each count. |
| 3. | U/s.337 IPC (2 counts) | Fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment for each count. |
| 4. | U/s.279 IPC | Fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 4 weeks simple imprisonment. |
| 5. | U/s.411 r/w.177 of MV Act | Fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo 1 week simple imprisonment. |
He also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.117 of 2015 on the file of the XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has dismissed the said appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed the present criminal Revision Petition.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2006 at about 14.45. hours opposite to Sakthi Cement and hardwares shop, near Aminjikarai Police Station, 3rd Avenue Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the accused has driven a MTC bus bearing Regn.NO.TN01 N 3169 from South to North in a rash and negligent manner hit against the median and came to the other end of the road in uncontrollable speed and dashed against an Auto Rickshaw which came from North to South and also hit against a tree along with tricycles which were parked under the tree one Mr.Kannan who was sleeping in his tricycle sustained injuries and died on the spot and another person namely Balaji who was travelling as a passenger in the Auto rickshaw also died and two more persons travelling in the bus and a person who sat on a tricycle and the driver of the Auto rickshaw were sustained injuries and hence the respondent has filed a charge-sheet stating that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 304-A (2 counts), 338 (2counts), 337 (2 counts), 279 IPC and Section 411 r/w 177 of M.V.Act.
5. Before the trial court, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 18 and marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22.
6. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after considering the materials placed before him found the accused guilty under Sections 304-A (2 counts), 338 (2 counts) 337 (2 counts) 279 IPC and under Section 411 r/w. 177 of MV Act and convicted him as stated above.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/Accused has filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Chennai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the said appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The petitioner/Accused feeling further aggrieved has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition.
8. Heard Mr.G.Saravanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.
9. PW1 is the one of the injured persons. He lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) before the po
