Point of Law: Accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused driver of the offending vehicle, in which, the deceased died on the spot and PW.1 sustained injuries and that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts

Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.12.2012, passed in CA.No.27 of 2012, by the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 05.06.2012, passed in CC.No.4 of 2006, by the Judicial Magistrate II, Virudhachalam.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.12.2012, passed in CA.No.27 of 2012, by the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 05.06.2012, passed in CC.No.4 of 2006, by the Judicial Magistrate II, Virudhachalam. thereby convicting and sentencing the Petitioner/Accused, for the offence under Section 279 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week and for the offence under Section 337 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week and for the offence under Section 304A of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six onths and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two weeks.

2. The Petitioner/Accused was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC in respect of the road accident took place on 14.10.2005 at 13.30 hours, alleging that at the relevant point of time, when PW.1, along with one Murugaiyan, as a pillion rider, was travelling in a bicycle from South to North, on the left side, at Mangalampet Bazar Road, Ulundurpet Main Road, in front of the Tea Shop, run by one Krishnasamy, the Mini Lorry, bearing Reg.No.TN-23-AA-9213, coming in the same direction, driven by the Petitioner/Accused in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the back side of the bicycle, due to which, the pillion rider fell down on the right side and the rear left side wheel of the offending vehicle ran over the head of the pillion, due to which, he died on the spot and PW.1 fell down along with the bicycle on the left side and sustained injuries.

3. The case was taken on file in CA.No.27 of 2012, by the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the Prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.12 and also marked Exs.P1 to P8. On completion of the evidence on the side of the Prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. Both the courts below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, concurrently found the Petitioner/Accused guilty and awarded punishments as stated above. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that as per the evidence of PW.10, when the offending vehicle was loaded with cement, on collision, there would have been a complete damage to the bicycle, but whereas there was no damage at all made to the bicycle and that when there was no damage at all caused to the bicycle and the bicycle was not seized and marked as an material object, rash and negligent driving cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the riders of the bicycle and in such circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled for acquittal and this Criminal Revision Case is to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent would submit that the Prosecution has proved its case, namely, the accident, the death of the deceased on the spot and the injuries sustained by PW.1 and also the invol